fbpx
Back

October 27, 2014

Two Months Left To Comment On EPA Power Plant Rule That A Near Majority Of Americans Oppose

Americans are beginning to solidify their opposition to a costly new rule proposed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). A new poll of Iowa voters commissioned by the Partnership for a Better Energy Future, which MSCI is a member of, found:

  • A majority believe the United States cannot afford new costs and potential job losses resulting from the EPA regulations.
  • Nearly half of those polled say they are not willing to pay a single dollar more in their energy bill to accommodate the new EPA regulations.
  • 47 percent of those polled oppose the power plant regulations.
  • Opposition to the rule is stronger in many of the states that stand to be hit hardest by the rule’s expected energy price increases and job loss impacts.

One possible reason these voters oppose this rule and anyone who supports it? The cost. As Connecting the Dots reported previously, a NERA Economic Consulting study recently found the rule to regulate emissions from existing power plants would cost U.S. businesses and consumers from $366 billion to $479 billion over 15 years. The report says electricity prices would spike by more than 10 percent in 43 states while average costs in 14 states would increase by 20 percent or more. (Click here to see how your state would be affected.) 

The rule could also increase natural gas prices by 29 percent. 

The incredible price tag comes despite the fact that, as White House science adviser John Holdren told lawmakers on Capitol Hill, the rule would “make only a modest dent in global greenhouse-gas emissions.” 

MSCI members are reminded they still have until mid-December to write to the EPA to oppose this rule. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce Institute for 21st Century Energy’s website has a draft letter our members can use – simply sign and submit the form letter on the website or personalize it by telling the EPA what your company would have to cut in order to pay for the increased energy prices. Would you have to cut employment? Benefits? Investment?