Senators, Stop Trying to Kill EPA's Clean Power Plan!

We, the undersigned, say the short-term benefits of continuing the course with dirty coal are not worth the long term costs in health and overall threats to the planet from global warming.

Senator Heitkamp’s webpage, which describes her Resolution backed overwhelmingly by Republican senators, as “bipartisan,” claims the plan is “totally unworkable as written for North Dakota’s utilities and regulators without causing severe reliability issues and massive rate increases."

However, numerous reports on the plan say it gives states a great deal of flexibility in how they implement the plan and, according to Washington Times, EPA adminisitrator Gina McCarthy insists the plan “is clearly within EPA’s authority under the Clean Air Act,” and “has strong scientific and legal foundations.”

Resources for the Future’s Dallas Burtraw says EPA’s plan is not just about preventing global warming. Even though he agrees that "the costs of reducing emissions may be substantial and, indeed, occur in the here and now”  (issues  Heitkamp seems most concerned about),  “combatting climate change produces real benefits—in the present—by reducing emissions from power plants that directly harm human health.” Burtaw says that the research his team has done “indicates that a strong carbon standard can significantly reduce several pollutants—including soot and smog, which have important consequences for public health—saving 3,500 lives per year nationwide, starting in the year 2020.”

This benefit, which would have a tremendous impact on reducing health care costs, Burtraw says goes “beyond the direct health benefits of mitigating climate change associated with avoided exposure to heat episodes, fires, severe weather events, and so on.”

According to Heitcamp’s website, the senator from North Dakota “continues to have concerns about the Clean Power Plan’s impact on coal-fired power plants," which she says "generate about one-third of the country’s electricity, and about 80 percent of North Dakota’s electricity," adding that "Coal supports 13,000 jobs in North Dakota, and mining has an economic impact of $3.5 billion."

But Heitcamp ignores the more serious concerns about health and global warming that clearly trump her issues. Furthermore, many statistics show that converting from coal to wind and solar power creates more jobs and costs consumers less, according to research on sustainable energy by Stanford scientist Mark Jacobsen.

We find the senators' arguments for fighting EPA's Clean Power Plan unjustified and believe delaying implementation of the plan will have far worse consequences for humans and the environment than the issues over which Heitkamp and others state concerns.

Therefore we urge the Senate to support EPA's Clean Power Plan and cease any effort that would delay its implementation.