Comments were due February 26 on EPA’s advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) to gather information on possible replacements for the CPP. The total count for comments submitted is over 251,000. By way of comparison, the proposal to repeal the CPP currently has over 512,000 comments, and the comment deadline was extended to April 26; the proposed CPP received over four million comments.
A sampling of the comments filed on the ANPRM includes:
- A group of states and cities (including New York, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia, D.C., Boulder, Chicago, New York City, Philadelphia, South Miami, and Broward County) oppose the use of an ANPRM in this context, arguing that “EPA already has the necessary information to regulate power plant greenhouse gas emissions, and immediate action is necessary[.]” They argue that the interpretation of Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act that EPA is considering is inconsistent with the statute and EPA’s regulations.
- The National Conference of State Legislatures, a bipartisan organization, asked for continuing consultation with states and the preservation of flexibility for and authority of states.
- The American Public Power Association asked that a replacement rule give affected sources flexibility in demonstrating compliance and offer states a “safe harbor” plan to reduce workload for states.
- The U.S. Chamber of Commerce (joined by other trade groups) said that any new standard of performance under Section 111(d) should reflect only measures “within the fence line” of a source and asked for flexibility for states, as well as consideration to avoid raising the cost of electricity.
- Unions for Jobs and Environmental Progress supported a replacement based on “inside the fence” measures.
- There were several requests for an extension of the comment period to better align with the comment period for the proposed repeal, but EPA has not granted an extension in this docket.