AR184

An Assembly Resolution expressing opposition to the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s “Affordable Clean Energy” rule proposal.

Whereas, The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently proposed the “Affordable Clean Energy” (ACE) rule which would establish emission guidelines for states to develop plans to address greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from existing coal-fired power plants, without setting individual state GHG emissions limits; and

Whereas, This new proposed rule is meant to replace the “2015 Clean Power Plan” (CPP), which aimed to reduce GHG emissions by requiring states to develop plans to meet GHG emission limits established by the rule; and

Whereas, While the CPP was adopted, it has not been implemented due to judicial action, and the current administration’s request to defer further judicial proceedings following an executive order in March 2017 directing the EPA to review, revise, or potentially rescind the CPP; and

Whereas, In October 2017, the EPA proposed to repeal the CPP, as it “exceeds EPA’s statutory authority,” and is “inconsistent with the Clean Air Act (CAA)”; and

Whereas, The CPP would have allowed states to meet their GHG emission goals by implementing measures both within and outside the fence line of existing electrical power generation units, such as by adding more renewable energy or establishing emissions trading schemes (“outside the fence”) or improving a plant’s heat-rate efficiency (“inside the fence”); and

Whereas, The proposed ACE rule, however, provides that states only be allowed to require actions within the fence line and supplies states with a list of “candidate technologies” to choose from to improve a plant’s heat-rate efficiency, thereby limiting a state’s options; and

Whereas, As the ACE rule proposal would not, if adopted, impose a total allowable GHG limit for states, the EPA’s range of benefit and cost estimates vary significantly; and

Whereas, The EPA states in its regulatory analysis that “as compared to the standards of performance that it replaces (i.e., the 2015 Clean Power Plan), implementing the proposed rule is expected to increase emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and increase the level of emissions of certain pollutants in the atmosphere that adversely affect human health. These emissions include directly emitted fine particles sized 2.5 microns and smaller (PM2.5), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NOx), and mercury (Hg). SO2 and NOx are each a precursor to ambient PM2.5, and NOx emissions are also a precursor in the formation of ambient ground-level ozone”; and

Whereas, The proposed rule is expected to have significant implications for aging coal-fired plants across the country, offering incentives to keep them running longer or enabling them to avoid installing modern pollution controls; and

Whereas, The end result would be a rise in the heat-trapping gases that are warming the planet as well as a potential rise in soot and other particulate matter that contribute to health problems such as asthma or pulmonary disease; and

Whereas, In addition to these changes, the proposal would revise the EPA’s New Source Review (NSR) permitting program, a federal Clean Air Act program that requires industrial facilities to install modern pollution control equipment when constructed, or when making a change that would increase emissions significantly; and

Whereas, The ACE rule proposal would allow states the option to only require a NSR when a physical or operational change made to an existing generating unit increases a unit’s hourly rate of pollutant emissions, meaning that “fewer sources will trigger major NSR under an hourly emissions increase,” according to the EPA; and

Whereas, Since maximum achievable hourly emissions are usually much higher than the maximum actual emissions, this change could increase maximum hourly emissions, in addition to increasing annual emissions at coal, oil, and gas-fired utility boilers without any air quality analysis or consideration of installing better air pollution control technology; and

Whereas, The proposed changes would impact New Jersey’s air quality due to increased emissions from out-of-Sate coal plants despite the State’s more stringent permitting requirements for air quality modelling and installation of state of the art air pollution control technology; and

Whereas, While New Jersey’s in-State emissions are unlikely to change due to ACE rule implementation, the main concern for New Jersey is the likelihood that emissions of all air pollutants, including ozone precursors, fine particles, and air toxics, at power plants in neighboring states would increase and contribute to the transport of air pollution into New Jersey as the jet stream pushes polluted air emitted from coal plant smokestacks west to east, disproportionately impacting northeastern states; and

Whereas, This is particularly troublesome for oxides of nitrogen (NOx), a ground-level ozone precursor, as increases in NOx emissions would make achieving the health standard for ozone, the only national air quality standard New Jersey does not meet, more difficult and less timely, resulting in adverse health and welfare impacts for New Jersey’s citizens; and

Whereas, Globally, implementation of the proposed ACE rule will likely significantly increase lifetime carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from coal, oil, and gas-fired boilers, and delay overall CO2 emission decreases from power plants; and

Whereas, By either increasing coal use, or delaying its decline, within the PJM energy distribution region, the proposed ACE rule may result in an increase in generation shifting from New Jersey’s cleaner energy portfolio to higher CO2 emitting coal boilers located out-of-State; and

Whereas, Implementation of the proposed “Affordable Clean Energy” rule has the potential to negatively impact New Jersey’s air quality, thus endangering both the environment and public health of the State’s residents; and

Whereas, Reversing efforts to combat climate change and increasing carbon emissions nationwide is not only shameful by the Trump Administration, but one that jeopardizes air quality and human health, and ignores the reality of climate change; now, therefore,

Be It Resolved by the General Assembly of the State of New Jersey:

1. This House opposes the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s rule proposal, entitled the “Affordable Clean Energy” rule, due to its potential to negatively impact New Jersey’s air quality, thus endangering both the environment and public health.

2. Copies of this resolution, as filed with the Secretary of State, shall be transmitted by the Clerk of the General Assembly to the President and Vice-President of the United States, the Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the Governor of New Jersey, the Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, the Attorney General of New Jersey, and every member of Congress elected from the State of New Jersey.

STATEMENT

This resolution expresses the opposition to the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s rule proposal, entitled the “Affordable Clean Energy” rule, due to its potential to negatively impact New Jersey’s air quality, thus endangering both the environment and public health.