 The move, says the chamber, would increase utility prices, and minority
communities and the poor would be hit the hardest.
“The EPA’s carbon dioxide regulation is a slap in the face to poor and minority
families,” NBCC president and CEO Harry Alford said in a statement last week.
“These communities already suffer from higher unemployment and poverty rates
compared to the rest of the country, yet EPA’s regressive energy tax threatens
to push minorities and low-income Americans even further into poverty.”
The NBCC pointed to a study prepared by Management Information Services, Inc., a
research and analysis group based in Oakton, Virginia. The study predicted the
Clean Power Plan to reduce CO2 emissions across the country would result in the
average family paying more than $1,225 more for power and gas in 2030 than they
paid in 2012.
It goes on to claim that EPA regulations would increase poverty among Hispanics
by more than 26 percent and African-Americans by more than 23 percent, with the
impact growing in the next 20 years:
“EPA’s apparent indifference to the plight of low-income and minority households
is inexcusable,” Alford said. “We should pursue policies that expand opportunity
for the less fortunate, not ones that further disadvantage them. The only
solution is for (the) EPA to withdraw its rule.”
But the EPA says it “conducted an unprecedented amount of outreach” to people
affected by the plan.
“The proposed Clean Power Plan provides broad benefits to all communities across
the nation,” the agency said in a statement to Watchdog.org. “Reducing
greenhouse gases, the primary driver of climate change, is especially beneficial
to low income communities, communities of color and indigenous populations,
those most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.”
Supporters of the Clean Power Plan defended the EPA, saying minority groups have
large numbers of people who suffer from breathing disorders such as asthma, and
the Clean Power Plan will go a long way toward alleviating those problems.
“Polluted air from dirty energy sources makes our communities sick, resulting in
unfair economic burdens on families from hospital costs to missed work days,”
Dr. Jalonne L. White-Newsome, director of federal policy for WE ACT for
Environmental Justice, said in a statement. “The solution is not for the EPA to
withdraw the Clean Power Plan.”
“It’s disheartening that the dirty energy industry thinks our community can be
that easily fooled by a sham study paid for by polluters and distributed by a
tiny subset of minority business groups that don’t represent our views,” said
Mark Magaña, founder of GreenLatinos.
But the author of the 135-page study defended its conclusions.
“The bottom line is that the proposed EPA regulation will significantly raise
energy costs, especially electricity prices, and no one disputes that, not even
EPA or (the Energy Information Administration),” Roger Bezdek, president of
Management Information Services, told Watchdog.org. “Of course, it varies in
different regions and different states.”
Bezdek said his company has a history of working with the industry, as well as
environmental organizations — from Greenpeace to the United Nations.
“Many of (our) studies have generated controversy from both sides,” Bezdek said.
“So, if you’re attacked from people with all different points of view and both
sides of the political spectrum, you can suspect you’ve done something right.”
The report says blacks and Hispanics spend 10 percent more on utilities than
whites, and the expenses related to the Clean Power Plan will especially affect
seven states with the highest concentrations of those ethnic groups: Arizona,
California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, New York, and Texas.
[to top of second column] |
 “Lower income people have to spend more of their discretionary
income on energy because they have no choice,” Bezdek said in a
telephone interview. “There are numerous studies documenting this.
When the crunch comes, they can spend less on food, less on
clothing, less on entertainment, less on education — but they can’t
spend less on energy. They have to pay the utility bills. They have
to pay the gasoline to get them to and from their jobs.”
The EPA counters the Clean Power Plan will save money in the long
run.
“EPA projects the Clean Power Plant will build on longstanding
efforts by states, cities, businesses and homeowners to increase
energy efficiency and reduce growth in demand for electricity,” the
agency’s statement said.
“This means that in 2030, when the plan is fully implemented, we
expect electricity bills to be roughly 8 percent lower — savings of
about $8 a month on an average monthly residential bill — than they
would have been without the actions in state plans.”
Introduced in June 2014, the Clean Power Plan has received praise
as well as criticism.
Public utility commissioners, environmental and energy agency
leaders in 14 states have come out in support of the EPA.
“This plan is a down payment on a more efficient, 21st century power
system that cuts energy waste, cuts pollution and cuts costs,” EPA
Administrator Gina McCarthy said in a speech unveiling the proposal,
which would mark the first time the agency will regulate carbon
dioxide emissions from the nation’s existing power plants.
The EPA will require all 50 states to take part in the Clean Power
Plan, although McCarthy insists the plan offers each state
flexibility in putting together their CO2 reductions.
Related: Will the EPA’s Clean Power Plan save you money or clean
your clock?
But there are questions about how much the plan will cost.
A study released earlier this year estimated 43 states will see
their electricity prices increase by double-digits in the next
decade, and 14 states will experience peak-year increases of more
than 20 percent.
“Critics claim your energy bills will skyrocket,” McCarthy said last
June. “They’re wrong. Any small, short-term change in electricity
prices would be within normal fluctuations the power sector already
deals with. And any small price increase — think about the price of
a gallon of milk a month — is dwarfed by huge benefits.”
The Clean Power Plan has drawn fire from critics who say the EPA is
overreaching.
Laurence Tribe, who was professor of constitutional law for Barack
Obama at Harvard and a well-known figure in liberal policy circles,
slammed the Clean Power Plan at a congressional hearing earlier this
year.
“EPA is attempting an unconstitutional trifecta: usurping the
prerogatives of the states, Congress and the federal courts all at
once,” Tribe told the House Energy and Power Subcommittee.
“Burning the Constitution should not become part of our national
energy policy.”
Tribe submitted comments criticizing the EPA plan last December on
behalf of Peabody Energy, the largest private sector coal company in
the world.
The Obama administration won a preliminary fight earlier this month
when a federal appeals court dismissed a lawsuit by coal companies
and 14 coal-producing states trying to block the Clean Power Plan.
The court ruled the suit was premature because the EPA hasn’t
finalized the plan.
But other suits are expected once the Clean Power Plan’s details are
put into final form, which is scheduled to happen in August.
Click here to respond to the editor about this article
|
