TIFFANY L. PARKS
Daily Reporter
While one House member has taken the lead on a resolution that opposes the federal Clean Power Plan, two others are sponsoring a bill that would bolster the relationship between the legislature and the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency.
House Bill 349, sponsored by Reps. Ryan Smith, R-Bidwell, and Tim Ginter, R-Salem, would prohibit the Ohio EPA director from submitting a state plan regarding greenhouse gas emissions to the U.S. EPA without the express approval of the Ohio General Assembly.
The bill was crafted in response to the Clean Power Plan being adopted in August.
“These regulations are designed to change how electricity is produced by requiring less use of coal (which currently supplies nearly 70 percent of Ohio’s electricity) and more of alternative sources, such as wind and solar,” Smith said, adding that the plan could have a dramatic impact on the cost and reliability of electricity in Ohio.
He said an economic impact study has indicated that the state’s electricity rates will likely rise by an annual average of 15 percent and peak at 21 percent.
“Under the Clean Power Plan, if a state does not submit a satisfactory plan under a tight schedule, the EPA will impose one of its own. Ohio and 26 other states have challenged the Clean Power Plan in court, but the litigation will take years, and many of the USEPA deadlines will come before it is completed.”
HB 349 specifies that a state plan approved by the General Assembly would remain in effect only to the extent that specific federal emission guidelines are in effect.
The bill would require the state EPA director to submit information in a timely manner to the USEPA as required by federal regulations.
The proposal specifically requires the director to develop, evaluate and provide a proposed state plan for the legislature’s consideration.
HB 349 requires any proposed state plan to maximize flexibility for the state and minimize adverse impacts on the cost and reliability of electricity, employment and Ohio’s economy.
“This legislation will provide important options to the state during the litigation and will help prevent the USEPA from imposing unreasonable or unlawful requirements on Ohio through its own plan,” Smith said.
Joe Nichols, the William & Helen Diehl Energy and Transparency Fellow at The Buckeye Institute, has extended his support to HB 349.
The Buckeye Institute is a nonpartisan, nonprofit research and educational institution that advances free-market public policy solutions.
“Ohio faces perhaps the most significant energy policy decision of this decade: How to satisfy the state’s obligations to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants under President Obama’s so-called Clean Power Plan,” he said, adding that the regulations present grave implications for Ohio’s economy and political sovereignty.
Nichols said it has been estimated that Ohio’s wholesale electricity prices will be 31 percent higher in 2030 than they otherwise would be without the Clean Power Plan.
“Higher electricity prices will harm the state’s economy and workforce. Higher energy prices will make Ohio less attractive to new companies and existing Ohio businesses will find it harder to grow and harder to survive,” he said.
“Higher costs and slower corporate growth ultimately put Ohio jobs at risk.”
Nichols said the Heritage Foundation has indicated that Ohio will lose nearly 32,000 manufacturing jobs by 2023 due to the federal plan.
“... and that estimate was made working from the less stringent proposed rule,” he said. “Losses under the final rule may prove even more devastating.”
Beyond jeopardizing state-based jobs, Nichols said the regulations will siphon more political power from the states to the federal government.
“State compliance plans will be federally enforceable,” he said.
“As Commissioner Tony Clark of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission stated, under the new regulations ‘[states] will have entered a comprehensive ‘mother may I’ relationship with the EPA that has never before existed.’”
Like Smith and Ginter, Nichols said HB 349 would strengthens the partnership between the General Assembly and Ohio EPA in preparing for the Clean Power Plan.
“The bill rightly requires the Ohio EPA to obtain the General Assembly’s approval before submitting a state plan to the USEPA, which will enhance transparency and accountability,” he said.
“The Ohio EPA would typically file such a plan without any legislative input or approval. However, the unprecedented nature and detrimental effects of the Clean Power Plan’s mandates have forced Ohio and many of her sister states to make an exception.”
At least eight other states, including Arizona, Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Tennessee and West Virginia have enacted measures similar to HB 349.
“HB 349 would require the Ohio EPA to draft four distinct plans and provide the General Assembly with a thorough assessment of each plan’s potential impact on electricity prices and reliability,” Nichols said.
“Although it would be prudent to contemplate each of the four plan options, drafting and analyzing four separate plans may prove too burdensome under the circumstances. A more feasible solution would be to require a cost and reliability report for one draft state plan of Ohio EPA’s choice.”
Nichols said the provision is simply good governance.
“You wouldn’t let a mechanic repair your car without first inspecting it and then giving you an estimate of what needs to be repaired and what those repairs will cost,” he said.
“Likewise, agency officials should not commit the state’s electric power resources to costly changes without first providing Ohioans and their elected representatives with a compliance plan and a cost estimate.”
Nichols went on to praise the governor and the Ohio EPA director for their efforts to curb the Clean Power Plan but noted that the regulations will long outlast the governor’s administration.
“HB 349 takes important steps to protect Ohio from the dire consequences of the Clean Power Plan. The bill creates a partnership between the General Assembly and Ohio EPA in the carbon rule planning process and allows for a more transparent and accountable process going forward. The requirements and procedures outlined in HB 349 offer responsible, state-based solutions to an unfortunate, Washington-based problem,” he said.