{"database": "press", "table": "releases", "rows": [["https://www.isakson.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/news-releases?ContentRecord_id=807a4b0c-b697-4463-8d89-950be676daed", "Isakson, Chambliss Join Senators in Calling for Withdrawal of EPA's Power Plan Rule", "2014-12-10", "2014", "2014-12", "Republican", "House", "GA", "Johnny Isakson", "I000055", "www.isakson.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "WASHINGTON \u2013 U.S. Senators Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., and Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., today expressed deep concern about the impact the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)\u2019s proposed existing source performance standards (ESPS) would have on electricity prices and power grid reliability.\r\nIn a letter to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, Isakson and Chambliss along with twenty-one of their Senate Republican colleagues called for the rule\u2019s withdrawal, citing unrealistic interim targets, a severely constrained timeline for implementation and complications related to multi-state resources among the many concerns raised by stakeholders.\r\n\u201cOur nation\u2019s families and businesses depend upon affordable, reliable electricity. Unfortunately, EPA\u2019s ESPS proposal will constrain Americans\u2019 energy choices and inflict significant economic harm without producing any tangible environmental benefits,\u201d the Senators write in the letter.\r\nFor example, the rule does not account for the reduction of carbon dioxide into the environment that will result in the expansion of clean nuclear energy at Plant Vogtle in Augusta, Ga.\r\nJoining Isakson and Chambliss in sending the letter were: Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., John Boozman, R-Ark., Richard Burr, R-N.C., Dan Coats, R-Ind., Thad Cochran, R-Miss., John Cornyn, R-Texas, Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, Deb Fischer, R-Neb., Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, John Hoeven, R-N.D., Mike Johanns, R-Neb., John McCain, R-Ariz., Jerry Moran, R-Kan., Rob Portman, R-Ohio, Jim Risch, R-Idaho, Pat Roberts, R-Kan., Richard Shelby, R-Ala., John Thune, R-S.D., and Roger Wicker, R-Miss.\r\nFull text of the letter is available below:\r\nDecember 10, 2014\r\nThe Honorable Gina McCarthy  Administrator  Environmental Protection Agency  U.S. EPA Headquarters \u2013 William J. Clinton Building  1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW  Washington, DC 20460\r\n\u00a0\r\nDear Administrator McCarthy,\r\nWe write to express serious concern regarding EPA\u2019s proposed existing source performance standards (ESPS) under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act and to identify some key issues that must be addressed in any final rule.\u00a0 As proposed, the rule would have sweeping impacts that would not only raise Americans\u2019 electricity prices, but also jeopardize the reliability of our nation\u2019s power grid.\u00a0 Among the biggest problems with the rule are the unrealistic interim targets, severely constrained timeline for implementation, and the complications related to multi-state resources.\r\nFirst, as both state environmental agencies and industry stakeholders have pointed out, the emission rate targets are front-loaded, requiring a disproportionate percentage of emission rate reductions in the early years of the program.\u00a0 These unrealistic reduction rates do not account for the time needed to accommodate the infrastructure changes needed to achieve them.\u00a0 Development of new generation and transmission resources takes time.\u00a0 Planning, design, siting, permitting, and construction can easily take as long as a decade.\u00a0\r\nComparing the interim emission rate reduction in 2020 (from the 2012 baseline) to the final emission rate reduction required by 2030, total emission rate reductions that must occur between\u00a0 the 2012 baseline and the 2020 emission rate target reach as high as 90%.\u00a0 The median reduction level is 66% for all states during that timeframe.\u00a0 Under EPA\u2019s second building block\u2014 prematurely shutting down coal-fired generation in favor of natural gas combined cycle generation, EPA\u2019s emission rate formula results in a 100% decrease in coal generation by 2020 in some states.\u00a0 Furthermore, this premature shutdown of coal fired generation will pose serious reliability risks to the electric grid and result in billions of dollars in stranded investment in expensive pollution control equipment that has been installed in order to comply with recent EPA regulations.\u00a0\u00a0 For these reasons, we urge the elimination of the 2020 targets.\r\nSecond, states have very little time to prepare and submit implementation plans\u201413 months from the time EPA issues a final rule with a possibility of a one-year extension for individual state plans or two-year extension for multi-state plans.\u00a0 This is simply not enough time for states to plan and prepare for such significant changes to their electricity generating portfolio, let alone address \u201cbeyond-the-fence\u201d energy efficiency programs.\u00a0 Moreover, regional transmission operators must have time to evaluate and provide feedback on the state plans to address impacts on regional markets and ensure power reliability.\u00a0 As outlined in its 2014 Initial Reliability Review of EPA\u2019s Proposed Clean Power Plan, the North American Electric Reliability Corporation also needs time to assess resource adequacy and long-term reliability of the North American bulk power system.\u00a0\r\nA third fundamental issue to be resolved is how EPA will account for electricity resources generated in one state but used in another.\u00a0 While EPA has promulgated state-based reduction targets, our electricity system is interconnected with many cross-state purchase agreements.\u00a0 EPA\u2019s current proposal fails to establish a workable regulatory framework for addressing these complicated, but critically important multi state issues.\u00a0\r\nOur nation\u2019s families and businesses depend upon affordable, reliable electricity.\u00a0 Unfortunately, EPA\u2019s ESPS proposal will constrain Americans\u2019 energy choices and inflict significant economic harm without producing any tangible environmental benefits.\u00a0 We urge you to address the wide range of issues raised by stakeholders regarding this proposal, including the three key concerns we have identified above, should you choose to proceed with issuing any final rule.\u00a0 However, we strongly believe the best way to address the aforementioned concerns is by withdrawing this ill-conceived and overreaching rule in its entirety.\r\n###", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"]], "columns": ["url", "title", "date", "year", "month", "party", "chamber", "state", "member_name", "bioguide_id", "domain", "scraper", "source", "date_source", "text", "has_text", "collected_at", "updated_at"], "primary_keys": ["url"], "primary_key_values": ["https://www.isakson.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/news-releases?ContentRecord_id=807a4b0c-b697-4463-8d89-950be676daed"], "units": {}, "query_ms": 2.0442588720470667, "source": "dwillis/congress-press", "source_url": "https://github.com/dwillis/congress-press", "license": "MIT", "license_url": "https://github.com/dwillis/congress-press/blob/main/LICENSE"}