This article is from the source 'washpo' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/epas-proposed-rules-on-carbon-emissions-create-complications-for-coal-state-democrats/2014/06/02/25e0cf48-ea71-11e3-9f5c-9075d5508f0a_story.html?wprss=rss_homepage

The article has changed 7 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
EPA’s proposal on carbon emissions creates complications for coal-state Democrats EPA’s proposal on carbon emissions creates complications for coal-state Democrats
(about 7 hours later)
The Obama administration’s proposal to cut carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants prompted an immediate backlash from Democrats in conservative-leaning states Monday, underscoring the extent to which the president’s energy policy will become a major front in the battle for control over Congress this fall. A new Obama administration proposal to cut carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants prompted an immediate backlash from Democrats in conservative-leaning states Monday, underscoring how the president’s energy policy will become a major front in the battle for control over Congress this fall.
The Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed rule, which is now subject to public comment and will be finalized a year from now, would cut carbon dioxide emissions from existing coal plants by up to 30 percent by 2030 compared with 2005 levels. It tackles the largest source of the nation’s carbon dioxide emissions, the electricity sector, which is helping drive climate change. The Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed rule, which is subject to public comment and will be finalized a year from now, would cut carbon dioxide emissions from existing coal plants by up to 30 percent by 2030 from 2005 levels. By targeting the nation’s single biggest source of carbon output, the proposal plays a central part in President Obama’s vow to address climate change before leaving office.
While environmentalists and liberal supporters of President Obama hailed the move as a long-overdue effort to tackle one of the biggest threats facing the planet, it added new complications for a party already facing a difficult midterm election landscape. Environmentalists and liberal supporters of the president hailed the move under the Clean Air Act as a long-overdue effort to tackle one of the biggest threats facing the planet. But the plan adds complications for Democrats already facing a difficult midterm landscape, and both sides announced plans Monday to pour money into states that will be pivotal this fall.
Nineteen states get more than half their electricity from coal-fired power plants, according to data collected by the Energy Information Administration. Kentucky and West Virginia get more than 90 percent of their power from coal. Nineteen states get more than half their electricity from coal-fired power plants, according to data collected by the Energy Information Administration. Kentucky and West Virginia get more than 90 percent of their power from coal. The EPA made concessions to those states in crafting its climate target. Coal-heavy Indiana, for example, would need to make smaller percentage cuts than New York or Washington states.
While the EPA made concessions to those states in crafting its climate target coal-heavy Indiana will not have to make the same cuts as states such as New York and Washington that did little to curb the slew of attacks from Democratic candidates running in those states. But the compromises did little to curb the attacks on Democratic candidates running in battleground states.
The National Republican Senatorial Committee was quick to say it would use the decision against vulnerable Democrats on Tuesday with automated calls hitting voice-mail boxes in Virginia, Louisiana, Colorado and Alaska, all states where incumbent Democratic senators are seeking re-election. The committee will target Northern Virginia swing voters and Gulf Coast residents specifically, and independents in Colorado and Alaska more broadly, a committee spokeswoman said. The National Republican Senatorial Committee announced that it would use the decision against vulnerable Democrats with automated calls on Tuesday hitting voice-mail boxes in Virginia, Louisiana, Colorado and Alaska all states where Democratic senators are seeking reelection. The committee will also target Northern Virginia swing voters, Gulf Coast residents, and independents in Colorado and Alaska, a committee spokeswoman said.
The regulations are “all part of [Obama’s] radical energy plan, which he said would make electricity rates ‘skyrocket,’ ” the robocall in Virginia will say. “Tell Mark Warner higher gas prices and new EPA regulations just don’t make sense for Virginia.” The regulations are “all part of [Obama’s] radical energy plan, which he said would make electricity rates ‘skyrocket,’ ” the robo-call targeting Virginia’s senior senator will say. “Tell Mark Warner higher gas prices and new EPA regulations just don’t make sense for Virginia.”
Among the Democrats criticizing the EPA proposal was West Virginia Secretary of State Natalie Tennant (D), running for an open U.S. Senate seat. She pledged to “stand up” to Obama, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy “and anyone else who tries to undermine our coal jobs.” Some Democrats were also quick to criticize the proposal, including Kentucky Senate candidate Alison Lundergan Grimes and West Virginia Secretary of State Natalie Tennant, who is running for an open U.S. Senate seat. Tennant pledged to “stand up” to Obama, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy “and anyone else who tries to undermine our coal jobs.”
“President Obama’s new EPA rule is more proof that Washington isn’t working for Kentucky,” said Alison Lundergan Grimes (D), Kentucky’s secretary of state and the Democratic nominee against Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. “When I’m in the U.S. Senate, I will fiercely oppose the president’s attack on Kentucky’s coal industry because protecting our jobs will be my number one priority.” Rep. Nick J. Rahall II (W.Va.), one of the most vulnerable Democrats seeking reelection this year, pledged to introduce legislation blocking the new rules. Several Senate Democrats, such as Mark Begich (Alaska) and Mary Landrieu (La.), who are friendly to the oil and gas industries that dominate their states issued cautious statements saying they would work with the EPA to make sure the plan did not hurt their constituents. Sen. Kay Hagan (D-N.C.) said she is “looking for a balance” that will cut carbon but work for business as well.
Rep. Nick J. Rahall II (D-W.Va.), one of the most vulnerable Democrats seeking re-election this year, pledged to introduce legislation blocking the new rules. Sen. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), a major supporter of federal limits on greenhouse gas emissions, said in an interview that his party was big enough to encompass these disparate views. “Our Senate candidates will be trying to protect the best interests of their states, and I think ultimately that’s going to lead to them to being successful this fall,” he said.
The Democratic opposition highlights the delicate balancing act the party faces between a president who wants to make a lasting impact on climate change and a Senate majority that hinges on members in energy-producing states. Incumbents like Sens. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) and Mark Begich (D-Alaska) are far more friendly to oil and gas industries that dominate their states than the Obama administration has been. Meanwhile, Obama and his top deputies urged their allies to defend the proposed rule against political attacks. Speaking in a conference call organized by the American Lung Association, the president promoted the proposal’s public health and climate benefits, saying, “There’s going to be a lot of efforts to put out misinformation and to try to make sure that spin overwhelms substance, and that PR overwhelms science, but I wanted to call you directly so you guys hear from me directly this is something that is important for all of us.”
And Sen. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), a major supporter of federal limits on greenhouse gas emissions, said in an interview Monday that the party was big enough to encompass these disparate views. The EPA estimates that for every $1 invested in complying with the rule, Americans would reap $7 in health benefits, in large part because of accompanying reductions in soot, sulfur dioxide and nitrogren oxides, which are linked to heart and lung illnesses.
“Our Senate candidates will be trying to protect the best interests of their states, and I think ultimately that’s going to lead to them to being successful this fall,” he said. One public health group plans to launch a multi-state ad campaign Tuesday promoting the proposal, while environmentalists are doing grass-roots work to mobilize support for the plan in states including North Carolina, Colorado and New Hampshire. The Natural Resources Defense Council Action Fund is holding a series of fundraisers for Democratic Hagan and Sens. Mark Udall (Colo.) and Jeanne Shaheen (N.H.) all of whom back carbon limits as well as for Democrats running in open seats in Iowa and Michigan.
The balance between acting on environmental issues that are high priorities for Obama and left-leaning big donors and creating jobs in energy-producing states represented by Democrats has come up several times in recent years. Energy-state Democrats have pushed the administration to approve the Keystone XL pipeline and open new lands for oil and gas exploration. The overwhelming majority of Americans support the idea of federal curbs on greenhouse gas emissions even if they have to pay for it. A new Washington Post-ABC News poll found that 70 percent of Americans back federal carbon limits on existing power plants and that 63 percent including 51 percent of Republicans, 64 percent of independents and 71 percent of Democrats said they would be willing to pay $20 a month to curb emissions. But such voters also have typically lacked intensity on the issue, often ranking it low on their priority lists.
Strategists close to those big donors say they are less concerned with Landrieu’s position on oil drilling or Pryor’s support for Keystone than the larger goal of salvaging the Democratic majority in the Senate. Gene Karpinski, president of the League of Conservation Voters, told reporters that the proposed rule “is both good politics and good policy” because in this year’s 11 battleground states voters especially those who are young care about climate change.
“This race is not about fracking, it’s about control of the United States Senate and a number of public policies that will be affected by that,” said David Kenney, a Colorado Democratic strategist who bundled more than $1 million for Obama in the 2012 election cycle and organizes fundraisers for senators visiting Denver. “I haven’t heard anybody say I won’t vote for this person or that person over fracking. Every conversation I’ve been in is, we cannot lose the United States Senate.” “In particular, the younger you are, the more intense you are around this issue,” he said
At the same time, major donors for whom action on climate change is a top priority have become more integral to Democratic fundraising in recent years. California investor Tom Steyer has pledged to mobilize $100 million for the midterm elections this year in key states, using climate change to spotlight droughts and public health while casting Republicans in a negative light. While several business groups predicted the rule would deliver a damaging blow to the economy, many utility officials said they were confident they could meet its targets.
“Climate change is a real and present danger. This Congress has failed in its most basic responsibility to protect the health and welfare of the American people from this grave threat,” Steyer said in a statement Monday. Nicholas Akins, chief executive of AEP, the nation’s largest emitter of carbon dioxide, said that his company is producing 21 percent less carbon dioxide than it did in 2005 and that it plans to retire an additional 6,600 megawatts worth of coal plants by late 2015, which would bring its reduction to 25 percent.
The overwhelming majority of Americans support the idea of the federal government curbing greenhouse gas emissions, even if they have to pay for it. A new Washington Post-ABC News poll found that 70 percent of Americans back federal carbon limits on existing power plants, and 63 percent including 51 percent of Republicans, 64 percent of independents and 71 percent of Democrats said they would be willing to pay $20 a month in order to do so. Akins said he was “still digesting” the proposals and wanted to make sure that AEP didn’t lose credit for measures taken or planned. He also said that certain states shouldn’t “bear a disproportionate share of the cost of U.S. action.”
Gene Karpinski, president of the League of Conservation Voters, told reporters that the proposed rule “is both good politics and good policy” because that sentiment is shared by voters in 11 battleground states this year. He compared the issue to same-sex marriage, predicting it will help mobilize young voters this fall. Some environmental advocates, meanwhile, said that the administration could seek deeper cuts and that they may press for them in the future. Most of the carbon reductions stemming from the rule would be come in the first decade, reaching 26 percent by 2020.
“In particular, the younger you are, the more intense you are around this issue,” he said. By 2030, the annual avoided carbon emissions will reach 550 million metric tons just below the 580 million metric tons cut by a series of fuel efficiency standards the administration has set for passenger cars and light trucks.
But to keep the Senate, Democrats must rely on lawmakers who take the opposite view. Kevin Kennedy, director of the U.S. Climate Initiative at World Resources Institute, praised the proposal but said “it’s possible that we may conclude that more can be accomplished under this framework.”
Landrieu has been the most vocal Democrat resisting the administration’s environmental proposals. In May, Landrieu introduced a measure with Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) that would have immediately authorized construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, a bill co-sponsored by Pryor, Begich and Sen. John Walsh (Mont.), another energy-state Democrat facing a tough fight this year. In announcing the rule, McCarthy said that it would have only a modest economic impact and that energy-efficiency measures would lower the average cost of U.S. electricity bills by 8 percent when it was fully implemented in 2030. Even short-term fluctuations, she said, would be “about the price of a gallon of milk a month.”
As chairman of the Senate Energy and Commerce Committee, Landrieu has used campaign advertisements to tout her influence as a boon to Louisiana’s oil and gas industries. Last week, she guided Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz on a tour of oil and gas hubs along the Gulf Coast. Scott Segal, a lobbyist with Bracewell and Giuliani who is advising companies with coal plant investments, said the easiest and cheapest energy efficiency measures have been made, leaving more expensive and “less-tested alternatives.”
But even more environmentally friendly Democrats have to walk a fine line on climate issues. Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) stresses an all-of-the-above energy approach and supports safe and well-regulated fracking; oil and gas industries make up more than 10 percent of his state’s gross domestic product. Udall is the son of the late Rep. Mo Udall (D-Ariz.), considered one of the fathers of modern conservation politics. Many state regulators and utility executives said the flexibility of EPA’s proposal would allow multiple options for meeting state targets, including improving energy efficiency, investing in renewable energy and reducing consumer demand.
Steyer and environmental groups that will spend millions more on like-minded candidates have said they won’t spend money for Landrieu or Pryor. But several groups say they will stand up for Kay Hagan (D-N.C.) and Begich, two senators who have supported EPA regulations on the Senate floor. Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (D), whose state would be required to make the steepest reduction under the EPA’s plan, said that two 700-megawatt generating units at a coal plant in western Washington are scheduled to shut down in 2020 and 2025 and that other reductions are achievable.
The Democratic debate over energy policy and climate change is further complicated by governors, particularly in Western states, where oil and gas industries make up a significant part of the economy. Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) and Montana Gov. Steve Bullock (D) are ardently pro-fracking. Even California Gov. Jerry Brown (D), caricatured as the ultimate 1970s liberal and who has called for urgent action on climate change, signed a measure in 2013 regulating the fracking industry. The first drilling in California is likely to begin this year. “We can do this, with this flexibility, at probably one-tenth of the cost of what the Flat Earth Society thinks it’s going to cost,” Inslee said.
Early in Obama’s first term, the intraparty tension cost the White House a key policy priority. The Democratic-led House passed cap-and-trade legislation by a narrow margin, with several energy-state Democrats voting no. Despite a 60-seat Democratic supermajority in the Senate, the bill never stood a chance because Democrats such as Landrieu and Pryor would never have voted for it. (When he first won his Senate seat in 2010, West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin III ran a campaign ad in which he took a shot, with a hunting rifle, at the cap-and-trade bill.) The flexible nature of the rule may leave the door open for lawsuits, however. Joseph Stanko, who heads government relations at the law firm Hunton and Williams and represents several utilities, wrote in an e-mail that the draft rule is “extremely vulnerable to legal challenge” because it is demanding carbon reductions that cannot be achieved simply by making changes to power plant operations.
The disconnect between donors who live in big cities on the coasts and elected officials who have to balance budgets and create jobs in energy-producing states causes tension within the party. “While EPA may want a system-wide regulatory cap and trade, that just doesn’t fit under the Clean Air Act,” he wrote.
“For us, it’s not a social good. For us, it’s our livelihood,” Kenney said of oil and gas exploration, which makes up 11 percent of Colorado’s gross domestic product. “I’d politely suggest they send their checks and let us figure out our public policy,” he said of donors who think otherwise. Scott Clement, Peyton Craighill and Reid Wilson contributed to this report.
Scott Clement and Peyton Craighill contributed to this report.
Related:Related:
What you need to know about the coal plant proposalWhat you need to know about the coal plant proposal