Senators John Barrasso (R–WY), James Inhofe (R–OK), David Vitter (R–LA), and Roger Wicker (R–MS) rightly criticized the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed regulations for new power plants at a congressional hearing last week.
The regulations for new plants, announced in June, set thresholds for CO2 output that would effectively eliminate new coal power plant construction. For the existing plant regulations, states will be forced to cut huge and widely varying portions of their emissions by 2030 based on a state-by-state formula created by the EPA.
More than 80 percent of America’s energy needs are met through carbon-emitting conventional fuels. Last year, coal and natural gas provided 66 percent of U.S. electricity generation.
While hardworking Americans have no say in whether this agency-sponsored rule will go into play, they will be personally affected. At the hearing, the opponents of the rule emphasized that the targets will increase energy prices, the costs of which will ripple through the economy, raising prices on all goods because of the increased input costs for businesses. In turn, this will cause people to spend a larger portion of their income on necessities. It will hit those on fixed incomes—especially the poor and the elderly—the hardest.
Even worse, jobs may be scarce even as wages have decreased. State governments, as they seek to lower emissions, will likely be forced to choose winners and losers among the energy providers, thus lowering consumer choice. According to Senator Wicker, for example, reaching the targets will require 100 percent of Mississippi’s coal production to be shut down, which makes up thousands of jobs and a huge portion of the state economy.
The opponents also spoke about how the rule possesses questionable legality and environmental impact. The EPA is regulating greenhouse gas emissions because of the alleged contribution to global warming that would result in harmful effects to human health and the environment. As EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy admitted, these regulations would have no meaningful impact on climate change or temperature reduction. This means the loss of jobs, affordable energy, and innovation would all be for naught.
All in all, the regulations would without a doubt cost jobs and hurt the paychecks of hardworking Americans.
Hillary Rosenjack is currently a member of the Young Leaders Program at The Heritage Foundation. For more information on interning at Heritage, please click here.
