Archive

ShareThis Page
Obama’s climate plan unfair to Pennsylvania, Casey says | TribLIVE.com
Pennsylvania

Obama’s climate plan unfair to Pennsylvania, Casey says

The Associated Press
CongressKeystoneJPEG0d6ed
Prior to the Senate's vote on the Keystone XL oil pipeline, Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., and members of the Democratic caucus file out of a strategy session on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Nov. 18, 2014. Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., chair of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, the bill's sponsor, has 59 votes ready and is searching for the last vote needed for approval, both to pass the legislation and to buoy her chances of retaining her Senate seat in a runoff Dec. 6 against Republican Rep. Bill Cassidy. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
CongressKeystoneJPEG0d6ed
Prior to the Senate's vote on the Keystone XL oil pipeline, Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., and members of the Democratic caucus file out of a strategy session on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Nov. 18, 2014. Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., chair of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, the bill's sponsor, has 59 votes ready and is searching for the last vote needed for approval, both to pass the legislation and to buoy her chances of retaining her Senate seat in a runoff Dec. 6 against Republican Rep. Bill Cassidy. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

WASHINGTON — Pennsylvania’s Democratic senator is criticizing President 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 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.

In a statement, the EPA said it welcomed hearing from Casey and others during a comment period that ends Dec. 1 and appreciated the senator’s broad support in fighting climate change.

“The actions that states across the country are taking have formed the foundation of EPA’s proposal and have allowed us to draft a plan that is flexible,” the agency said. “We have heard a broad range of questions and suggestions from stakeholders on how the proposed rule could be changed.”

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.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com 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.