[House Report 114-349]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


114th Congress    }                                      {      Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session      }                                      {     114-349

======================================================================

 
  PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL UNDER CHAPTER 8 OF TITLE 5, 
UNITED STATES CODE, OF A RULE SUBMITTED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 
AGENCY RELATING TO ``CARBON POLLUTION EMISSION GUIDELINES FOR EXISTING 
        STATIONARY SOURCES: ELECTRIC UTILITY GENERATING UNITS''

                                _______
                                

 November 19, 2015.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 
            the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

  Mr. Upton, from the Committee on Energy and Commerce, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            DISSENTING VIEWS

                      [To accompany H.J. Res. 72]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Energy and Commerce, to whom was referred 
the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 72) providing for congressional 
disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of 
a rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency 
relating to ``Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing 
Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units'', having 
considered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment 
and recommend that the joint resolution do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
Purpose and Summary..............................................     2
Background and Need for Legislation..............................     2
Hearings.........................................................     5
Committee Consideration..........................................     6
Committee Votes..................................................     6
Committee Oversight Findings.....................................     8
Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives............     8
New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditures     8
Earmark, Limited Tax Benefits, and Limited Tariff Benefits.......     8
Committee Cost Estimate..........................................     8
Congressional Budget Office Estimate.............................     8
Federal Mandates Statement.......................................     8
Duplication of Federal Programs..................................     8
Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings..............................     8
Advisory Committee Statement.....................................     9
Applicability to Legislative Branch..............................     9
Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation...................     9
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............     9
Dissenting Views.................................................    10

                          PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

    H.J. Res. 72 was introduced by Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-KY) on 
October 26, 2015. The joint resolution provides for 
congressional disapproval of a rule submitted by the 
Environmental Protection Agency relating to ``Carbon Pollution 
Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric 
Generating Units.''

                  BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

    On October 26, 2015, Subcommittee on Energy and Power 
Chairman Whitfield introduced H.J. Res. 72 pursuant to the 
Congressional Review Act.\1\ This joint resolution would 
disapprove the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) recently 
published rule establishing guidelines to regulate carbon 
dioxide (CO2) emissions from existing fossil-fuel 
fired power plants, referred to by the agency as its ``Clean 
Power Plan'' or ``111(d) Rule.''\2\ This rule, together with 
EPA's final rule for new fossil-fuel fired power plants, was 
issued pursuant to the President's ``Climate Action Plan'' and 
an accompanying Presidential Memorandum.\3\ These two rules 
would put in place an unprecedented regulatory structure 
throughout the U.S. electricity sector, effectively imposing 
renewable energy and cap-and-trade mandates similar to those in 
the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade legislation that failed in 
2010.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\The Congressional Review Act is set forth in 5 U.S.C. 801-808.
    \2\The EPA's final rule for existing power plants is entitled 
``Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: 
Electric Generating Units'' and was published in the Federal Register 
at 80 Fed. Reg. 64662 (Oct. 23, 2015).
    \3\The EPA's final rule for new power plants is entitled 
``Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New, 
Modified, and Reconstructed Stationary Sources: Electric Utility 
Generating Units,'' was published in the Federal Register at 80 Fed. 
Reg. 64510 (October 23, 2015). The Climate Action Plan is available at 
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/image/
president27sclimateactionplan.pdf and the Presidential Memorandum dated 
June 25, 2013 is available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-
office/2013/06/25/presidential-memorandum-power-sector-carbon-
pollution-standards.
    \4\See H.R. 2454, the ``American Clean Energy and Security Act of 
2009'' (111th Cong. 2009). In 2009, the House only narrowly passed the 
measure (219-212), and it was never considered by the Senate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    H.J. Res. 72 would specifically disapprove of EPA's 
CO2 regulations for existing power plants, referred 
to by the agency as its ``Clean Power Plan'' or its ``111(d) 
Rule.'' Under this rule, EPA interprets section 111(d) of the 
Clean Air Act (CAA), a rarely invoked provision, to allow the 
agency to force a massive shift in the United States from coal-
fired generation to renewable energy, primarily wind and solar. 
This rule reflects an unprecedented attempt by the EPA to 
change the way electricity is generated, transmitted, and 
consumed in the United States by asserting new regulatory 
authorities over state electricity decision-making.
    Under the 111(d) rule, states would be required to submit 
individual or regional energy compliance plans to be approved 
by the EPA in order to meet predetermined CO2 
emissions caps set by the agency for each state's electricity 
sector. For states that fail to submit a satisfactory plan, the 
electric generating units in those states would become subject 
to a ``Federal Plan'' under which the agency has proposed it 
would implement a federal regulatory cap-and-trade program.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\On October 23, 2015, EPA published a proposed ``Federal Plan'' 
that would impose a regulatory cap-and-trade program on electric 
generating units in states that fail to submit a satisfactory state 
plan. See ``Federal Plan Requirements for Greenhouse Gas Emissions From 
Electric Utility Generating Units Constructed on or Before January 8, 
2014; Model Trading Rules; Amendments to Framework Regulations; 
Proposed Rule,'' 80 Fed. Reg. 64966 (Oct. 23, 2015). The EPA signals 
that the agency's preference is that states adopt or participate in 
state, regional, or nationwide cap-and-trade programs. To this end, the 
agency has also proposed ``Model Trading Rules'' that would be 
presumptively approved for state plants. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The rule unquestionably seeks to put in place regulatory 
cap-and-trade for the electricity sector. The rule includes 
detailed provisions related to emissions trading, credits, 
allowances, monitoring and verification requirements, 
recordkeeping and reporting and ``trading-ready'' plans. In the 
final rule, the agency explicitly states: ``the EPA believes it 
is reasonable to anticipate that a virtually nationwide 
emissions trading market for compliance will emerge.''\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\80 Fed. Reg. at 64732.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The costs of implementation of this new regulation will be 
in the billions of dollars annually according to EPA's own 
estimates. In the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) accompanying 
the final 111(d) Rule, EPA estimates costs to range from $1.4 
billion to $2.5 billion in 2020, $1.0 billion to $3.0 billion 
in 2025, and $5.1 billion to $8.4 billion in 2030 (RIA, Table 
3-8 at p. 3-22).\7\ In developing these estimates, EPA assumes 
investments in demand side energy efficiency of $2.1 billion to 
$2.6 billion in 2020, $16.7 billion to $20.6 billion in 2025, 
and $26.3 billion to $32.5 billion in 2030 (RIA Tables 3-3 at 
p. 3-15). These additional costs are offset by projected 
reductions in electricity demand of up to 7.8 percent by 2030, 
according to the agency. (RIA, Table 3-2 at p. 3-14). 
Additionally, according to EPA's estimates, natural gas use in 
the power sector may decline by as much as 4.5 percent over the 
base case in 2030, and coal production for the electric power 
sector declines by as much as 17 percent by 2025. (RIA, Tables 
3-15 and 3-16 at pp. 3-33 to 3-34).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\The RIA is available at http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/
files/2015-08/documents/cpp-final-rule-ria.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The rule is highly controversial and subject to numerous 
legal issues, including threshold issues about whether EPA has 
any authority at all to proceed with the rulemaking.\8\ Whether 
EPA has authority to promulgate its regulations under section 
111(d) has been the subject of extensive oversight and 
legislative activity before the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce and its Subcommittee on Energy and Power.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\Legal, cost, and implementation issues surrounding EPA's 111(d) 
rulemaking were addressed in the Committee's report on H.R. 2042, the 
Ratepayer Protection Act, June 19, 2015, available at https://
www.congress.gov/114/crpt/hrpt171/CRPT-114hrpt171.pdf. Significant 
legal issues include whether the agency has any authority at all to 
proceed with the rulemaking under section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act 
because EPA already regulates electricity generating units under 
section 112 of the Clean Air Act. Id. at pp. 4-7. Even assuming such 
authority, there remain fundamental issues regarding the scope of such 
authority, including whether EPA can require actions ``beyond-the-
fence'' of the electric generating units that are the subject of the 
regulation. Id. at 7-10. In addition, other questions relate to what 
legal authority the agency would have to impose the proposed Federal 
Plan, the consistency of the Clean Power Plan's approach with state 
laws or pending legislation, and how the regulations affect the 
jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission or 
jurisdictional issues under the Federal Power Act. Id.
    \9\See hearings listed in report below. See also Letter to The 
Honorable Gina McCarthy dated November 2, 2015 available at http://
energycommerce.house.gov/sites/republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/
files/114/Letters/20151102EPA.pdf; see also, e.g., EPA's Proposed 
CO2 Regulations for Existing Power Plants: Critical Issues 
Raised in Hearings and Oversight'' (Dec. 2014) available at http://
energycommerce.house.gov/sites/republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/
files/analysis/20141216-oversight-series-clean-power-plan.pdf; The 
Committee has also held dozens of hearings during the 111th, 112th, 
113th and 114th Congresses, in which the President' climate agenda and 
related EPA rulemakings were addressed and heard from numerous 
witnesses, including EPA, the Department of Energy, and a wide range of 
non-governmental witnesses, including climate scientists. Following the 
announcement of the ``Climate Action Plan'' in 2013, the Committee's 
Subcommittee on Energy and Power invited the President's Science 
Advisor, John Holdren, as well as witnesses from the government's 
leading climate agencies, including the Office of Science and 
Technology Policy, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and 
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA); all of these 
invited witnesses and agencies declined to testify.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    There are also significant issues relating to the potential 
impacts on electricity prices and electric reliability as well 
as jobs.\10\ A recent analysis of the final rule by NERA 
Economic Consulting (NERA) estimates that for the period 2022 
to 2033, energy sector expenditures would increase by $220 
billion to $292 billion, with annual compliance costs averaging 
$29 billion to $39 billion.\11\ NERA projects that ``[f]or the 
overall economy, losses to U.S. consumers range from $64 
billion to $79 billion on a present value basis over the same 
time period.'' NERA also projects the Clean Power Plan ``could 
potentially generate significant average and `peak' retail 
electricity rate increases, with most states experiencing 
double digit rate increases,'' including for example:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\Id. at pp. 10-13.
    \11\See ``Energy and Consumer Impacts of EPA's Clean Power Plan,'' 
prepared by NERA Economic Consulting for the American Coalition for 
Clean Coal Electricity, November 7, 2015 available at http://
www.nera.com/content/dam/nera/publications/2015/NERA-ACCCE-CPP-Results-
Nov72015.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
           40 states could have average retail 
        electricity price increases of 10% or more;
           17 states could have average retail 
        electricity price increases of 20% or more; and
           10 states could have average retail 
        electricity price increases of 30% or more.
    While the costs that would be imposed on American 
ratepayers would be in the billions of dollars, EPA does not 
project that the rule will produce any meaningful impact on 
global greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, in the United States, 
energy related CO2 emissions have significantly 
declined and according to the Energy Information Administration 
(EIA), even in the absence of the rule, U.S. energy related 
CO2 emissions will remain below 2005 levels through 
2040.\12\ The U.S. share of worldwide emissions will continue 
to decline over that period as CO2 energy related 
emissions in the developing world are projected to grow to 120 
percent above 2005 levels by 2040.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\See EIA Annual Energy Outlook 2015, Energy-related carbon 
dioxide emissions available at http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/AEO/
section_carbon.cfm.
    \13\See EIA, World carbon dioxide emissions by region, available at 
http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/tablebrowser/#release=IEO2013&subject=3-
IEO2013&table=10-IEO2013&region=0-0&cases=Reference-d041117.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Attorneys General or state agencies of at least 27 
states of the 47 states\14\ subject to the rule have challenged 
this regulation, including Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, 
Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, 
Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, 
New Jersey, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South 
Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin, 
and Wyoming.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\At this time, EPA is not setting CO2 emission 
performance requirements for Alaska, Hawaii, Guam, or Puerto Rico due 
to the ``lack of suitable data and analytic tools.'' 80 Fed. Reg. at 
64826. Vermont and the District of Columbia also are not required to 
submit a state plan because they ``do not have affected ``electric 
generating units''. Id. at n. 767.
    \15\See State of West Virginia et al v. United States Environmental 
Protection Agency, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, 
Case No. 15-1363 and consolidated proceedings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

What the legislation would do

    The legislation provides that Congress disapproves the rule 
submitted by the EPA relating to ``Carbon Pollution Emission 
Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility 
Generating Units'' (published at 80 Fed. Reg. 64662 (October 
23, 2015)), and such rule shall have no force or effect. Under 
the Congressional Review Act, an agency may not issue a rule 
that is the same or a substantially similar to a rule that has 
been disapproved through the statutorily prescribed process 
unless authorized by subsequent legislation.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\See 5 U.S.C. Sec. 801(b)(2) (``A rule that does not take effect 
(or does not continue) under paragraph (1) may not be reissued in 
substantially the same form, and a new rule that is substantially the 
same as such a rule may not be issued, unless the reissued or new rule 
is specifically authorized by a law enacted after the date of the joint 
resolution disapproving the original rule.''); see also ``The 
Congressional Review Act (CRA),'' Congressional Research Service (Dec. 
11, 2014) available at http://www.crs.gov/reports/pdf/IF10023; ``The 
Congressional Review Act: Frequently Asked Questions,'' Congressional 
Research Service (April 17, 2015) available at http://www.crs.gov/
Reports/pdf/R43992?source=search.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                HEARINGS

    The Subcommittee on Energy and Power held six hearings 
relating to EPA's regulation of existing power plants under 
section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act. The hearings and witnesses 
included the following:
     On October 22, 2015, the Subcommittee held a 
hearing entitled ``EPA's CO2 Regulations for New and 
Existing Power Plants: Legal Perspectives'' and received 
testimony from:
            Elbert Lin, Solicitor General of West Virginia;
            Allison D. Wood, Partner, Hunton & Williams, LLP;
            Raymond L. Gifford, Partner, Wilkinson Barker 
        Knauer LLP;
            Richard L. Revesz, Lawrence King Professor of Law, 
        Dean Emeritus, Director, Institute for Policy 
        Integrity, New York University School of Law;
            Emily Hammond, Associate Dean for Public 
        Engagement, Professor of Law, George Washington 
        University School of Law.
     On October 7, 2015, the Subcommittee held a 
hearing entitled ``EPA's CO2 Regulations for New and 
Existing Power Plants'' and received testimony from:
            The Honorable Janet McCabe, Acting Administrator, 
        Air and Radiation, U.S. Environmental Protection 
        Agency.
     On March 17, 2015, the Subcommittee held a hearing 
entitled ``EPA's Proposed 111(d) Rule for Existing Power 
Plants: Legal and Cost Issues'' and received testimony from:
            Laurence H. Tribe, Carl M. Loeb University 
        Professor and Professor of Constitutional Law, Harvard 
        Law School;
            Richard L. Revesz, Lawrence King Professor of Law, 
        Dean Emeritus, Director, Institute for Policy 
        Integrity, New York University School of Law;
            Allison D. Wood, Partner, Hunton & Williams LLP;
            Art Graham, Chairman, Florida Public Service 
        Commission;
            Kelly Speakes-Backman, Commissioner, Maryland 
        Public Service Commission and Chair, Regional 
        Greenhouse Gas Initiative Inc. Board of Directors;
            Craig Butler, Director, Ohio Environmental 
        Protection Agency; and
            Donald van der Vaart, Secretary, North Carolina 
        Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
     On September 9, 2014, the Subcommittee held a 
hearing entitled ``State Perspectives: Questions concerning 
EPA's Proposed Clean Power Plan'' and received testimony from:
            Kenneth W. Anderson, Jr., Commissioner, Public 
        Utility Commission of Texas;
            Travis Kavulla, Commissioner, Montana Public 
        Service Commission;
            Henry R. Darwin, Director, Arizona Department of 
        Environmental Quality;
            Tom W. Easterly, Commissioner, Indiana Department 
        of Environmental Management;
            Kelly Speakes-Backman, Commissioner, Maryland 
        Public Service Commission; and
            David W. Danner, Chairman, Washington Utilities and 
        Transportation Commission.
     On July 29, 2014, the Subcommittee held a hearing 
entitled ``FERC Perspectives: Questions Concerning EPA's 
Proposed Clean Power Plan and other Grid Reliability 
Challenges'' and received testimony from:
            Cheryl A. LaFleur, Acting Chairman, Federal Energy 
        Regulatory Commission;
            Philip D. Moeller, Commissioner, Federal Energy 
        Regulatory Commission;
            John R. Norris, Commissioner, Federal Energy 
        Regulatory Commission;
            Tony Clark, Commissioner, Federal Energy Regulatory 
        Commission; and
            Norman C. Bay, Commissioner, Federal Energy 
        Regulatory Commission.
     On June 19, 2014, the Subcommittee held a hearing 
entitled ``EPA's Proposed Carbon Dioxide Regulations for Power 
Plants'' and received testimony from:
            Janet McCabe, EPA Acting Assistant Administrator 
        for Air and Radiation.

                        COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

    On November 3, 2015, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power 
met in open markup session to consider H.J. Res. 72 and 
forwarded the bill to the full Committee, without amendment, by 
a record vote of 15 ayes and 12 nays.
    On November 17 and 18, 2015, the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce met in open markup session to consider H.J. Res. 72. A 
motion by Mr. Upton to order H.J. Res. 72 reported to the 
House, without amendment, was agreed to by a record vote of 28 
ayes and 21 nays.

                            COMMITTEE VOTES

    Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives requires the Committee to list the record votes 
on the motion to report legislation and amendments thereto. The 
following reflects the record votes taken during the Committee 
consideration:


                      COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee made findings that are 
reflected in this report.

         STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

    H.J. Res. 72 provides for congressional disapproval under 
chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of a rule submitted 
by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to ``Carbon 
Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: 
Electric Generating Units.''

   NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY, ENTITLEMENT AUTHORITY, AND TAX EXPENDITURES

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee finds that H.J. 
Res. 72 would result in no new or increased budget authority, 
entitlement authority, or tax expenditures or revenues.

       EARMARK, LIMITED TAX BENEFITS, AND LIMITED TARIFF BENEFITS

    In compliance with clause 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI 
of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee 
finds that H.J. Res. 72 contains no earmarks, limited tax 
benefits, or limited tariff benefits.

                        COMMITTEE COST ESTIMATE

    The Committee adopts as its own the cost estimate prepared 
by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to 
section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

                  CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE ESTIMATE

    At the time this report was filed, the cost estimate 
prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office 
pursuant to section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 
was not available.

                       FEDERAL MANDATES STATEMENT

    The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of Federal 
mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act.

                    DUPLICATION OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS

    No provision of H.J. Res. 72 establishes or reauthorizes a 
program of the Federal Government known to be duplicative of 
another Federal program, a program that was included in any 
report from the Government Accountability Office to Congress 
pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139, or a program 
related to a program identified in the most recent Catalog of 
Federal Domestic Assistance.

                  DISCLOSURE OF DIRECTED RULE MAKINGS

    The Committee estimates that enacting H.J. Res. 72 
specifically directs to be completed no specific rulemakings 
within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 551 that would not otherwise be 
issued by the agency.

                      ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT

    No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b) 
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this 
legislation.

                  APPLICABILITY TO LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

    The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to 
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public 
services or accommodations within the meaning of section 
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act.

             SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF THE LEGISLATION

    The legislation provides that Congress disapproves the rule 
submitted by the EPA relating to ``Carbon Pollution Emission 
Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility 
Generating Units'' (published at 80 Fed. Reg. 64662 (October 
23, 2015)), and such rule shall have no force or effect.

         CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

    This legislation does not amend any existing Federal 
statute.

                            DISSENTING VIEWS

    Finalized by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on 
August 3, 2015, the ``Clean Power Plan'' rule establishes 
emission guidelines for states to follow in developing plans to 
control carbon pollution from existing coal-fired and natural 
gas-fired power plants under section 111(d) of the Clean Air 
Act.\1\ That same day, EPA also finalized a rule limiting 
carbon pollution from new, modified, and reconstructed power 
plants under section 111(b) of the Clean Air Act.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Carbon Pollution Emission 
Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating 
Units, 80 Fed. Reg. 64662 (Oct. 23, 2015) (Final Rule) (online at 
www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-10-23/pdf/2015-22842.pdf) (hereinafter 
Clean Power Plan).
    \2\U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Standards of Performance 
for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New, Modified, and Reconstructed 
Stationary Sources: Electric Generating Units, 80 Fed. Reg. 64510 (Oct. 
23, 2015) (Final Rule) (online at online at www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-
2015-10-23/pdf/2015-22837.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    H.J. Res. 72 is part of the Republicans' ongoing attack on 
EPA's Clean Air Act authority to cut carbon pollution and 
prevent dangerous climate change. If the resolution is enacted, 
then EPA would not be able to reissue the Clean Power Plan or 
any rule that is substantially the same.\3\ This is 
particularly important since it would block this 
administration, or any future administration, from taking 
meaningful action to curb carbon emissions from power plants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\5 U.S.C. Sec. 801(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 INACCURACIES IN THE MAJORITY'S REPORT

    The majority's report includes a number of false 
statements, inaccuracies, and exaggerations regarding the Clean 
Power Plan.
Cooperative federalism
    First, the majority's report claims that the Clean Power 
Plan represents ``an unprecedented attempt by the EPA to change 
the way electricity is generated, transmitted and consumed in 
the United States by asserting new regulatory authorities over 
state electricity decision-making.''\4\ They further argue that 
``states that fail to submit a satisfactory plan the electric 
generating units in those states would become subject to a 
`Federal Plan' under which the agency has proposed it would 
implement a federal regulatory cap-and-trade program.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\Majority Report at 2.
    \5\Id. at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    However the claims of EPA taking over a state's electricity 
sector are hyperbolic and ignore the history of the Clean Air 
Act. Under current law, EPA sets the emissions reduction goals 
under section 111(d) and it is up to the states to decide how 
to best achieve these reductions. States are not required to 
develop or implement their own plans for reducing carbon 
emissions from existing power plants, but EPA is required to 
step in with a federal plan when a state does not implement its 
own. The Clean Air Act's use of cooperative federalism ensures 
that environmental risks are addressed, either by state action 
or by federal action where a state fails to act. Congressional 
action is not needed to provide a safe harbor for states that 
cannot--or will not--comply with the requirements of the Clean 
Power Plan.
    Further, environmental groups have noted that:
    Regulating air pollution that affects the whole nation . . 
. lies at the heart of Congress' regulatory powers, and 
cooperative federalism arrangements addressing such matters are 
familiar and constitutionally unproblematic . . . If State 
Petitioners object to the Clean Power Plan, they can decline to 
participate and leave regulation of power plants' carbon 
pollution to EPA. But they cannot leverage their option to 
participate into a basis for thwarting Congress' command that 
EPA regulation dangerous emissions from power plants.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\In re West Virginia, No. 15-1277 (D.C. Cir., envtl. intervenors 
response Aug. 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NERA study
    The majority's report also relies heavily on a recent NERA 
analysis that is flawed in a number of key aspects.\7\ For one, 
it does not take into account any of the benefits of the Clean 
Power Plan. Also, as described more fully elsewhere,\8\ the 
NERA analysis ignores recent studies that show real world 
investments in energy efficiency programs generate net savings 
for consumers--efficiency shows up in the NERA study as a net 
cost--and the NERA analysis significantly overestimates the 
costs for renewables like wind and solar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\Majority Report at 5.
    \8\See e.g. Union of Concerned Scientists, ACCCE, NERA, and Another 
Misleading Study about the Clean Power Plan (Nov. 12, 2015) (online at 
blog.ucsusa.org/john-rogers/accce-nera-and-another-misleading-study-
about-the-clean-power-plan-952?--ga=1.6790970.989006215.1444331667).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    EPA estimates that, as a result of the Clean Power Plan, in 
2030 carbon pollution from the power sector will be 32 percent 
below 2005 levels. In addition, by 2030 emissions of 
SO2 from power plants will be 90 percent lower 
compared to 2005 levels, and emissions of NOX will 
be 72 percent lower. EPA estimates the climate and public 
health benefits are worth an estimated $34 billion to $54 
billion per year in 2030--far outweighing the costs of $8.4 
billion--and will help avoid up to 3,600 premature deaths and 
up to 90,000 asthma attacks in children in 2030 alone.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Clean Power Plan By the 
Numbers (Aug. 3, 2015) (online at www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/
2015-08/documents/fs-cpp-by-the-numbers.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    When it comes to the retail price of electricity, while EPA 
estimates that electricity prices may increase somewhat, 
average electricity bills will be cut by 7 percent in 2030.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Regulatory Impact 
Analysis for the Clean Power Plan Final Rule, at 3-40 (Aug. 3, 2015) 
(online at www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-08/documents/cpp-
final-rule-ria.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The rule's impact on climate change
    The majority's report doubles down on the claim that the 
Clean Power Plan will not have a meaningful impact on global 
greenhouse gas emissions.\11\ There is no evidence to support 
the claim that CO2 emissions from U.S. coal-fired 
power plants are an insignificant part of the climate problem. 
The United States is the world's second largest carbon 
polluter, responsible for nearly 20 percent of the world's 
carbon pollution\12\ and fossil fuel-fired power plants alone 
account for roughly a third of our country's CO2 
emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\Majority Report at 5.
    \12\U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Global Greenhouse Gas 
Emissions Data (online at www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/
global.html).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Further, the Clean Power Plan will play a significant role 
in the fight against climate change. U.S. action alone won't 
stop catastrophic climate change, but action by the rest of the 
world without U.S. action also will not succeed, and other 
countries have an excuse to delay action as long as the United 
States does as well. Strong U.S. action is an essential part of 
the global response to climate change. We must act aggressively 
to reduce carbon pollution, and so must other major emitters. 
The Clean Power Plan demonstrates U.S. leadership and is key to 
our effort to secure an ambitious and lasting international 
climate agreement.
Legal challenges
    Finally, the majority's report notes that ``[T]he Attorneys 
General or state agencies of at least 27 states of the 47 
states subject to the rule have challenged this 
regulation.''\13\ However, legal challenges to final EPA rules 
are routine, and 34 states have already indicated they will 
prepare plans to comply with the rule.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\Majority Report at 6.
    \14\E&E's Power Plan Hub, Legal Challenges (online at 
www.eenews.net/interactive/clean--power--plan#legal--challenge--
status--chart); See, e.g. Just say no' strategy appears to be 
crumbling, E&E News (Oct. 28, 2015) (online at www.eenews.net/stories/
1060027079).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               CONCLUSION

    The history of the Clean Air Act is a history of 
exaggerated claims that have never come true. In reality, 45 
years of clean air regulation have shown that a strong economy 
and strong environmental and public health protection go hand-
in-hand.
    EPA's power plant rules are a critical part of our national 
strategy to reduce carbon pollution and protect the climate. 
The Clean Power Plan outlines a path to cleaner air, better 
health, a safer climate, and a stronger economy. H.J. Res. 72 
would nullify that rule, and replace it with nothing.
    For the reasons stated above, we oppose the resolution and 
we dissent from the views contained in the Committee's report.

                                   Frank Pallone, Jr.,
                                           Ranking Member.
                                   Bobby L. Rush.
                                   Anna G. Eshoo.
                                   Eliot L. Engel.
                                   Gene Green.
                                   Diana DeGette.
                                   Lois Capps.
                                   Mike Doyle.
                                   Jan Schakowsky.
                                   G.K. Butterfield.
                                   Doris O. Matsui.
                                   Kathy Castor.
                                   John Sarbanes.
                                   Jerry McNerney.
                                   Peter Welch.
                                   Ben Ray Lujan.
                                   Paul Tonko.
                                   John Yarmuth.
                                   Yvette D. Clarke.
                                   David Loebsack.
                                   Kurt Schrader.
                                   Joseph P. Kennedy, III.
                                   Tony Cardenas.

                                  [all]