In recent testimony before the Pennsylvania House and Senate Coal Caucuses, Pennsylvania Coal Alliance CEO John Pippy said the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed “Clean Power Plan” will be “the cheap shot that cripples the industry.”

ELECTRIC SHOCK: The CEO of Pennsylvania Coal Alliance has sobering words for the EPA’s proposed Clean Power Plan when coal powers nearly 40 percent of the state’s electricity.

Pippy made the comment in reference to a proposed rule by the EPA to reduce gas emissions by 32 percent over 2012 levels of currently reported emissions. If the rules are approved, emissions would have to be reduced by the year 2030.

Pippy explained that coal accounts for nearly 40 percent of the electricity generated in Pennsylvania and the steam coal market represents about 80 percent of the state’s market for coal.

“Any law or regulation that deliberately or unintentionally impedes coal usage by electric generators not only threatens the affordability and reliability of electricity to ratepayers but will also cause severe economic consequences to coal production, jobs, and livelihoods, local tax bases and the overall state economy,” Pippy said.

Via Watchdog.org:

“The Environmental Protection Agency has taken advantage of the cyclical market conditions created by the influx of cheap natural gas and a decrease in electric demand to introduce the harshest regulation on the coal industry to date. While the price of natural gas is sure to fluctuate and the demand for electricity to rise as the economy strengthens, the EPA’s proposed “Clean Power Plan” will be the cheap shot that cripples the industry from rebounding when the demand market returns.”

Throughout his testimony, Pippy referenced the attempts already designed to decrease coal emissions, citing an 85 percent per electric unit drop, which he said meets and exceeds previous EPA regulated air quality emissions mandated by the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Due to the predictable and reliable standards of coal, Pippy said it allows “energy-intensive industries such as manufacturing to be able to forecast pricing and do business in Pennsylvania.”

In agreement with Pippy’s testimony is The Institute for 21st Century Energy. Theycite an analysis completed by Energy Information Administration (EIA), the statistical arm of the Department of Energy,of the EPA’s proposed regulations. They focus on economic and climate costs and benefits of new EPA regulations versus a business as usual scenario.

That data proves:

• cumulative economic costs over the Clean Power Plan’s 2020 to 2030 compliance period are estimated $1.23 trillion in lost Gross Domestic Product, with a peak annual loss of $159 billion in 2025, which amounts to an average annual GDP hit over the compliance period of $112 billion
• from 2020 to 2030, EIA estimates it will cost an average of $199 in lost economic growth for each ton of carbon dioxide reduced, reaching an extraordinarily high value of $316 per ton in 2021
• most of the claimed climate benefits from decreasing emissions would occur beyond U.S. borders

The Institute concluded in its findings:

Maybe creating a huge new bureaucracy to implement carbon dioxide regulations that would highjack well-established state authority, disrupt the entire U.S. electricity sector, jeopardize the reliability of the electric grid, raise electricity costs on struggling families, and yield an estimated net loss in wealth of $899 billion to $1.16 trillion is appealing to EPA. But for the rest of the country, it’s decidedly a bad deal. The Energy Institute has said repeatedly that the Clean Air Act is the wrong vehicle for regulating greenhouse gas emissions. EIA’s analysis proves it.

See the article here.