Energy and Commerce Committee Leaders Press EPA on Harmful and Unworkable CPP 2.0 Proposal

Washington D.C. — House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Chair Morgan Griffith (R-VA), and Environment, Manufacturing, and Critical Materials Subcommittee Chair Bill Johnson (R-OH) today sent a letter to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Michael Regan calling on the EPA to withdraw the overreaching and unworkable Clean Power Plan 2.0 proposal, which would make electricity less reliable and more expensive for Americans. The letter, sent on behalf of the Republicans on the Oversight and Environment subcommittees, also requests additional information regarding the EPA’s rule development process, which appeared to be riddled with misleading and defective analyses.


"Like its predecessor, the Clean Power Plan, the CPP2.0 Proposal aims to transform the nation’s electric generation, causing Americans’ utility service to be less reliable and more expensive. In this way, both the Clean Power Plan, which was stayed and later vacated by the Supreme Court, and this CPP2.0 Proposal, vastly exceed the limited authority Congress granted EPA under Clean Air Act Section 111, thereby violating the “major questions” doctrine."


In addition to our concerns with the legality of the EPA’s CPP2.0 Proposal, the EPA’s promulgation of proposals with misleading and defective analyses undermines public trust and creates costly regulatory and legal uncertainty that harms the orderly planning for power generation that is essential to public welfare. The plainly inaccurate discussion about CO2 pipelines adds to serious questions about the analytical quality of the proposed rule. There are myriad other defects. For example, there are widespread concerns about the accuracy of the EPA’s claim that Boundary Dam, the coal fired EGU in Saskatchewan, Canada, has been adequately demonstrated to capture 90 percent of CO2. Even though the plant’s owner filed comments that the EPA was wrong about this assertion.” 


  • Under the Clean Power Plan 2.0, the EPA has introduced policy proposals to set strict, costly, and untested standards on both new and existing natural gas and remaining coal generators. 
  • These changes will have a chilling effect on American natural gas and coal—which account for about 60 percent of U.S. electricity generation—making life unaffordable for Americans and increasing risks for blackouts.
  • The EPA’s proposals are legally dubious, scientifically questionable, and pragmatically unworkable. 
  • The letter was sent ahead of an Energy and Commerce Committee hearing today, where members will hear from state officials on how the EPA’s efforts are affecting their ability to provide affordable, reliable energy to power local economies, keep people safe, and preserve livelihoods in their communities.

The Chairs requested Administrator Regan provide the following information by November 28, 2023:

  1. Describe in detail your Action Development Process (ADP) for developing the regulatory proposals for GHG standards and guidelines for fossil fuel EGUs, including, but not limited to:
  2. The date you or your staff initiated the process and the timeline for each step of the process including the options selection briefing package, draft actions, and final drafts at the conclusion of the process;
  3. How you developed your regulatory options, including assessment of alternative approaches, the entities with which you consulted, including federal agencies and non-governmental entities, such as utilities, electric generators, pipeline operators, electric grid operators, and electric reliability entities, etc.;
  4. Your evaluation of the full costs of infrastructure development and deployment necessary to support your proposed emissions controls technologies and systems, and if you did not conduct such as evaluation, explain why not;
  5. How you validate the accuracy of the information in the proposals;
  6. How you determined that CCUS for the power sector has been adequately demonstrated based upon the limited performance of cited power plants;
  7. Whether any element of your proposal was not subject to the ADP and identify the element;
  8. The role of the Executive Office of the President, including the Office of Management and Budget, National Climate Advisors, and any other member of the White House staff, in developing the CPP2.0 Proposal, including after completion of the ADP.
  9. Provide all documents the EPA prepared to initiate this regulatory development process, including all preliminary and final Analytic Blueprints and any other planning or guidance documents covering the approach, scope, underlying technical criteria, legal criteria, and review mechanisms the EPA would follow for developing these GHG regulatory proposals, regulatory impact analyses, and Technical Support Documents.
  10. Describe why information supplied in the rulemaking docket was not complete at the time of the initial release of the CPP2.0 Proposal.

CLICK HERE to read the full letter to Administrator Regan.

CLICK HERE to read the statement from Chairs Rodgers and Johnson following the CPP2.0 Proposal announcement.

CLICK HERE for information from the June 6th hearing about the Clean Power Plan 2.0.

CLICK HERE to read about a recent letter to FERC regarding the risks posed to the grid by CPP 2.0.