News Release: AFP Activists to Urge Senators to Overturn Expensive Coal Regulation
AFP Activists to Urge Senators to Overturn Expensive Coal Regulation
Americans for Prosperity is launching a nationwide grassroots campaign to encourage the U.S. Senate to overturn the EPA’s Utility MACT regulation on power plants. This rule threatens to raise energy prices by as much as 24-percent and will cost the country an estimated 1.4 million jobs. Major opposition efforts are already underway in what could be some of the hardest hit states including Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, Arkansas and Virginia.
“The EPA has committed to agenda that will shut down the entire coal industry in the United States, without any concern for the impact on jobs, electricity prices or the economy,” said James Valvo, Americans for Prosperity Director of Policy. “The cost-benefit analysis on this rule is laughable, with EPA relying on a study that profiles pregnant subsistence fisherwomen in the Faroe Islands to find someone who would benefit.”
The U.S. Senate will soon vote on S.J.Res. 37, which would overturn the EPA’s new rule and prevent its huge costs from burdening the American economy. AFP will be encouraging activists to reach out to, among others, Senators Dan Coats (IN), Debbie Stabenow (MI), Ben Nelson (NE), Sherrod Brown (OH), Bob Casey (PA), Mark Pryor (AR) Mark Warner (VA), and Jim Webb (VA). AFP is promoting action not only through state office visits, but also through activist phone calls and emails.
“Utility MACT threatens to have a very damaging impact on Americans everywhere. This is a policy our nation cannot afford and we are dedicated to bringing that message to Congress’s doorstep,” added Valvo. “It’s time for the Senate to stand up and clarify that they never meant EPA to write this kind of rule.”
Utility MACT requires coal- and oil-fired power plants to install expensive scrubbers to reduce emissions of mercury, nine other metals, and three acid gases by 91 percent within three years. The EPA’s own cost-benefit analysis shows that the costs of the regulation outweigh the benefits of reducing these emissions by approximately 1800 to 1.