Casey to Obama: Climate plan unfair to Pennsylvania |

Casey to Obama: Climate plan unfair to Pennsylvania

The Associated Press

WASHINGTON — Pennsylvania’s Democratic senator is criticizing President Barack Obama’s proposed climate change rules, urging revisions to a plan that he says imposes unfair costs and burdens on the state.

In a 22-page letter sent Thursday to the Environmental Protection Agency, Sen. Bob Casey makes clear he supports broad goals of combating global warming and agrees an EPA plan is necessary. But Casey said the carbon emissions target for the state is unreasonably high and could lead to higher electricity prices.

“Our Commonwealth powers the electricity needs of states across the mid-Atlantic. We should be treated sensibly and fairly,” said Casey, the state’s senior senator.

It is Casey’s first formal comment on the issue since the EPA released its proposal in June. His position highlights the delicate balancing act ahead for coal-state Democrats caught in the middle between an Obama administration seeking to move aggressively on climate change and leaders of next year’s Republican-controlled Congress pledging to curtail the EPA.

Pennsylvania’s other senator, Republican Pat Toomey, has already expressed strong opposition to the EPA proposal.

Under the plan, Pennsylvania is required to reduce emissions from power plants by roughly 32 percent by 2030 as part of a broader plan to cut greenhouse gases nationwide. The EPA is now hearing public comment and a final plan is expected by June.

The EPA did not have immediate comment.

In the letter Casey faults the plan as impractical. He said Pennsylvania is being tasked with substantially increasing renewable energy such as wind or solar power, even though federal data show that the state is technically limited compared to other states to do so.

Casey also said the EPA plan fails to credit Pennsylvania for clean power sources such as existing hydropower and nuclear power. And he said the proposal does not take into account the environmental value of Pennsylvania plants that provide energy by burning coal refuse, which otherwise would litter the state’s landscape.

Pennsylvania relies on coal for about 40 percent of its electricity, with another 35 percent from nuclear, and 21 percent from natural gas.

“If waste-coal power plants did not exist to remove the legacy coal refuse piles, then greater potential exists for uncontrolled releases of carbon and other harmful air pollution,” Casey said, adding that those plants have saved the state’s taxpayers between $100 million and $200 million in potential cleanup costs.

He cautioned that the EPA proposal would lead to unfair rate increases for Pennsylvania residents, because electricity suppliers would have to purchase credits from out-of-state wind farms such as in Illinois and Indiana to fulfill renewable energy requirements.

“These expenditures represent a pure cost to Pennsylvania ratepayers,” Casey said.

Last week, Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, who will become majority leader in January, said he believes Democrats will join him next year in his quest to thwart the EPA’s efforts to reduce the country’s carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants.

Casey hasn’t taken a position on any congressional action.

“Coal is an important domestic resource that we cannot simply ignore for the sake of expediency,” he said. “We need to keep coal in our energy mix, but in a manner that reduces pollution.”

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.