By Taylor Kuykendall

Electric Reliability Coordinating Council submitted a request on July 8 for an extension by 60 days of the comment period for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units.

With more than 85 days remaining to comment on the U.S. EPA's rule limiting carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants, some organizations are already telling the agency they are going to need more time to review the 130-page proposed rule and related materials.

The Clean Power Plan, a proposed rule published June 18, is open for public comment until Oct. 16. The rule aims to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions from power plants by 19.2% from 2012 by 2030, according to SNL Energy data. At least two organizations have already submitted public comments asking for an extension of the comment period on the rule.

The Electric Reliability Coordinating Council, a group of power-generating companies with members that include "major electric utilities" in the U.S. with the "shared belief that coal-based energy should play an important role as our nation moves toward a clean energy future," submitted comments on the rule.

Scott Segal, director of ERCC, wrote in the comments submitted July 8 that review of the proposal will include not just the 130 pages of the rule itself, but also 376 pages of regulatory impact analysis that will take more than the provided 120 days for regulated sources and the public to analyze.

Segal is requesting the EPA extend the comment period by an additional 60 days to a total of 180 days.

"The proposal is remarkably broad in scope — raising important practical and legal questions that require more than 120 days to fully analyze. . . . Additional time is warranted not only because the proposal's use of [Section 111(d) of the Clean Water Act] is unprecedented in scope, but also because the proposal raises an almost unfathomable number of practical issues related to planning and implementation," Segal wrote.

Segal called the proposal "an amalgamation of many different proposed rules" that will require states and stakeholders to carefully scrutinize the data underlying the 50 state-specific goals laid out by the EPA. He said stakeholders also need time to review the potential pathways states may choose to reach their individual emission rates assigned to each state.

“The proposal is remarkably broad in scope — raising important practical and legal questions that require more than 120 days to fully analyze.”

 Scott Segal, director of the Electric Reliability Coordinating Council

"This task would be daunting even with a narrow set of strategies to consider, but EPA has proudly refused to narrow the categories of strategies that they will consider when evaluating state plans submitted pursuant to the proposal," Segal wrote. "Accordingly, those seeking to provide thorough and useful comments on the proposal will be required to consider, in the context of each of the 50 states, all potential combinations of the 'building blocks' identified by EPA in the proposal. … Such a task is unprecedented and justifies a comment period of at least 180 days."

As for the need to immediately address climate change issues, Segal responded that the EPA would be better served to carefully consider issues with the rule in an extended comment period rather than "face indefinite legal challenges and delays."

Buckeye Power Inc., a nonprofit generation and transmission cooperative in Ohio with coal, natural gas, wind and other generation in its portfolio, is asking for an even longer extension on the rule. In comments submitted July 17, Patrick O'Loughlin, senior vice president and COO of Buckeye, asked for a 180-day extension beyond the current deadline of Oct. 16 to comment on the "extremely lengthy" proposal.

"There are also 620 supporting documents, a significant number of which contain technical information and data, that must be reviewed and analyzed," O'Loughlin said. "Not to mention the fact that many of the support documents were not issued until days after the existing source proposal was published in the Federal Register, allowing for even less time for review."

O'Loughlin also pointed out that the comments are due the same day as the EPA's proposal for modified sources of emissions, making meaningful comment on both rules a "virtual impossibility."

Argument against renewable energy

In another recently posted comment dated July 17, the Pacific Legal Foundation, Dalton Trucking Inc. and the Center for Environmental Science, Accuracy and Reliability accused the EPA of shirking its responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act by not consulting with wildlife agencies on the rule. The groups said the rule's reliance on solar and wind energy to lower carbon dioxide emissions will threaten endangered species.

"Contrary to EPA's analysis, the proposed rule, through its reliance on wind and solar energy, is likely to adversely affect listed species and their critical habitat," the comments stated. "Accordingly, EPA must consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service prior to finalizing its proposed rule."

The letter was written by Damien Schiff, principal attorney for the Pacific Legal Foundation, a 40-year-old nonprofit legal foundation that advocates for individual property rights, individual liberty and limited government. The Pacific Legal Foundation also was one of the organizations that lined up behind Arch Coal Inc.'s case against the EPA in its battle over whether the agency had authority to retroactively veto a mine permit.

In the letter, Schiff pointed out studies and instances of both solar and wind energy developments adversely affecting bird populations and the desert tortoise, a listed endangered species. Schiff argued that the EPA determination that no consultation with wildlife agencies was necessary cannot be reconciled with relevant case law.

“Contrary to EPA's analysis, the proposed rule, through its reliance on wind and solar energy, is likely to adversely affect listed species and their critical habitat.”

 Damien Schiff, principal attorney for the Pacific Legal Foundation

"EPA's proposed rule to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from fossil-fuel-fired power plants relies on increased generation of wind and solar energy," the letter stated. "It is well established that these energy sources adversely affect wildlife, and therefore it is reasonably foreseeable that the proposed rule's reliance on wind and solar energy will produce adverse effects on listed species and their critical habitat."

An SNL Energy review of early comments on the Clean Power Plan mentioning coal found the majority were primarily in support of the proposed rule. The rule, however, also faces a number of legal and legislative challenges on the way to implementation.

The EPA estimates that under the proposal, coal production for the power sector will decline by roughly 25% to 27% in 2020 from base case levels and will decrease roughly 30% to 32% in 2030. While the EPA projects the rule will spur a net job gain across the economy, the United Mine Workers of America has estimated that the rule could cost as many as 75,000 "direct coal generation jobs," including jobs in coal mines, power plants and railroads, by 2020.

The EPA projects that reductions in carbon and other sources of air pollution required by the rule could have annual costs as high as $8.8 billion in 2030, while the plan would produce public health and climate benefits worth an estimated $55 billion to $93 billion per year in 2030.

A spokeswoman for the EPA did not immediately respond to a request for comment.