Texas officials declare EPA's proposed CO2 emission rule unworkable

WASHINGTON - Texas lawmakers and a top state utility official sharply criticized a proposed Environmental Protection Agency rule on carbon dioxide emissions Tuesday, saying it would unfairly impact Texas.

Kenneth Anderson, a commissioner of the Public Utility Commission of Texas, said at a House hearing that the state could be responsible for up to 25 percent of the nation's proposed reduction, while only producing 11 percent of the country's power.

The EPA's proposed rule, the Clean Power Plan, would require each state to meet specific carbon dioxide emission goals by 2030, and an interim goal by 2020. The rule focuses on making fossil fuel power plants more efficient, using more zero- and low-emitting power sources such as natural gas, solar, wind and nuclear power, and using electricity more efficiently.

Anderson and officials from three other states on the panel said EPA should delay the rule to give states more time to analyze the potential economic impact and respond adequately.

Those representatives also told lawmakers the EPA needs to be responsive to the comments from each state. In its current form, the officials from Arizona, Indiana, Montana and Texas said the rule is unworkable.

Adjusting the rule

Also, a study being conducted by the Electric Reliability Council of Texas on the impact of the proposed rule on its 550 power plants won't be finished until December, after EPA's deadline for comment on the rules.

Anderson said Texas would submit comments by the Oct. 16 deadline, but the full effect of the proposal would still be unknown.

"We won't have good, steady data relating to cost or liability until the end of the year," Anderson said.

Representatives of two other states, Maryland and Washington, argued against delay.

While their states also have issues with the proposed rule, they said they hope the EPA will adjust the rule after comments are submitted to align better with what states need. They said the EPA has been responsive to their comments so far.

"There are costs to the economy to taking no action, so delay is not something we would want," said David Danner, chairman of the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission.

Uniformly negative

Texas representatives at the House Energy and Commerce Committee's Energy and Power subcommittee hearing were uniformly negative about the proposed rule in their questioning of the panel. They expressed concern that the rule could be detrimental to the state's economy.

"Would we have not built the transcontinental railroad … or the interstate highway system … because we were worried about climate change?" Rep. Joe Barton, R-Ennis, asked. "(Climate change) is an issue, but it should not be the dominant issue."

The lawmakers were also concerned about the EPA making assumptions with the proposed rule and not conferring with the states enough.

Another issue with the rule, Anderson said, is the 2020 interim goal.

Five years, he said, isn't enough time to build the infrastructure - transmissions and power plants - to change the energy structure in Texas to comply with the rule. Some of the projects that would be required to comply take at least four years to develop.

"They're asking us to redesign a system that evolved over 100 years and do it in 14 years or so," Anderson said. "That's a pretty short time frame."

'Leap of faith'

Anderson said after the hearing he would like to see Texas try to comply with the rule if it goes into effect, but if it is similar to what is proposed there will be challenges.

"The real issue is: Will the EPA listen and address the concerns?" Anderson said. "They're asking us to take a really big leap of faith that they will be reasonable."

According to a U.S. Energy Information Administration report last month, from 2000 to 2011 Texas reduced its carbon dioxide emissions by 9 percent, ranking 21st out of the states. Texas still remains the greatest producer of energy-related carbon dioxide emissions, and by a wide margin.

"It's not like we're not doing anything. It's not like Texas has buried its head in the sand. We've made enormous investments in order to get more efficient and the EPA now is asking us to double down," Anderson said.