Bill targets cost-benefit analysis of climate rule

Rep. Ann Wagner (R-Mo.) unveiled a bill Wednesday aimed at repealing the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed rule on power plant carbon emissions and shifting the cost-benefit analysis the EPA uses.

Wagner said the EPA used domestic costs in calculating the cost-benefit analysis for the climate rule, but accounted for the international benefits from a 30 percent cut in power plant caron emissions by 2030. Using this accounting method that she called “unconventional,” the rule had higher benefits than costs.

Under her legislation, the EPA would only be allowed to use benefits within the United States.

“It will repeal these regulations, and it will make sure that we take into account the impact that these regulations have on the American people here, domestically,” Wagner said Wednesday at a Capitol Hill rally organized by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and other Republicans. http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/213806-gop-to-obama-take-yo...

In a statement, Wagner said the Obama administration is committed to destroying affordable energy and well-paying jobs.

“The president’s proposed plan would turn the lights off in Missouri and cause energy prices to skyrocket on hardworking families and manufacturers,” she said in the statement.

“Let’s make sure that we end this war on coal,” Wagner said.

EPA spokeswoman Liz Purchia said her agency uses global estimates because the impacts of climate change are felt globally, and greenhouse gases can affect the environment no matter where they’re emitted.

“We’re interconnected and living in a global economy, and this estimate does a better job of capturing that,” she said. “Looking at only ours would be like a global race to the bottom.”

She said using the global accounting method aligns with guidelines under the White House Office of Management and Budget, since the EPA is estimating the social costs of carbon.

—Laura Barron-Lopez contributed to this story.

More in Energy & Environment

GAO faults nuke regulator’s cost-benefit analysis

Read more »