WASHINGTON, DC - The Subcommittee on Energy and Power today voted to approve the Ratepayer Protection Act by a vote of 17 to 12. The Ratepayer Protection Act is a commonsense solution to protect ratepayers from higher electricity prices, reduced reliability, and other harmful impacts of EPA’s proposed Clean Power Plan. The bill extends the compliance deadlines until after judicial review is completed, and provides that a state would not be forced to implement a compliance plan if the governor finds it would have significant adverse effects on ratepayers or reliability.
While the Clean Power Plan will have a no meaningful impact on the U.S. or global climate, it will have an impact on American families and businesses. The subcommittee has held five hearings on EPA’s Clean Power Plan since it was proposed, which have identified the fundamental legal flaws of the plan, the myriad implementation challenges, the pressing reliability concerns, and the significant economic harm to ratepayers, including the nation’s lower income and most vulnerable.
“We believe these major problems can be addressed with the Ratepayer Protection Act," said Energy and Power Subcommittee Chairman Ed Whitfield (R-KY), “The bill does not repeal the Clean Power Plan nor does it preclude a state from moving forward with EPA’s agenda. It simply creates a voluntary process to prevent the proposed rule from imposing unnecessary economic hardship."
House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) added, “Numerous states have raised legal, feasibility, and economic concerns about the administration’s plan. The Ratepayer Protection Act translates these concerns into sensible safeguards that protect ratepayers both large and small."
At a recent subcommittee hearing, Laurence Tribe, noted legal expert and professor at Harvard Law School, criticized EPA’s plan for its blatant disregard of the constitution, arguing that EPA “lacks the statutory and constitutional authority to adopt its plan" and compared EPA’s overreach to “burning the constitution." Legal expert Allison Wood similarly testified that “EPA’s proposed section 111(d) rule suffers from many legal infirmities and violates the Clean Air Act."
