Tell the EPA: The economic cost of repealing the Clean Power Plan is just too high

On Feb. 21, the Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA, will hold a “listening session” in Kansas City at which it will hear comments from the public about its proposal to repeal the Clean Power Plan, or CPP, our country’s first policy to set limits on carbon pollution from power plants in order to reduce the amount of harmful carbon they release into our air.

The CPP is based on a strong legal foundation, as the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on three separate occasions that the EPA has a responsibility under the Clean Air Act of 1963 and other laws to protect our families and communities from harmful carbon pollution from power plants and other sources.

Repealing the CPP, as President Donald Trump and EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt have proposed, would dismantle America’s only federal limits on carbon pollution from power plants, worsening climate change and resulting in dirtier air. Replacing it with weaker standards would be a reckless decision that would expose millions of Americans to more pollution and would place the health and safety of our communities at risk. More powerful hurricanes and wildfires, more frequent extreme weather events, and more asthma attacks and respiratory issues for our kids and seniors are likely what’s in store if the Clean Power Plan is repealed.

There is also an economic cost to the administration’s proposal to repeal the CPP. In recent years, we have seen tremendous growth in the clean energy economy. Clean energy jobs in both Missouri and Kansas are growing at much faster rates than other job sectors in each state: three times faster in Missouri and nine times faster in Kansas. A recent report on clean energy jobs found that the biggest clean energy job growth in Missouri and Kansas occurred in the renewable energy sector (wind, solar, geothermal, hydroelectric), exceeding 14 percent growth in both states.

When it was enacted, the CPP sent a strong signal to the marketplace that our country would promote the development of cleaner sources of energy and invest in energy efficiency measures to reduce the amount of energy we use. The marketplace, it was predicted, would then respond to that signal with increased investment. As the clean energy job numbers show, the plan is working.

Yet, the Trump administration is trying to repeal the CPP and shift our focus back to dirty, carbon-intensive sources of energy. This effort is the exact opposite of his promise to create jobs, as the marketplace is shifting away from coal and not looking back.

Repealing the CPP would deny Americans the opportunity to create 560,000 jobs and add $52 billion in economic value. That’s in addition to the more than 3 million clean energy jobs in the U.S. already, according to a recent report from Environmental Entrepreneurs, a nonpartisan environmental business group.

When coupled with the negative impact on public health, clean air and clean water from repealing the CPP, it should make our country scratch its collective head in utter confusion as to why the Trump administration is proposing to do so.

As the founder of a business focused on wind, solar, hydrogen and energy storage technologies, I have seen firsthand how the marketplace has changed for clean energy and how it is driving job and economic growth.

I believe — as I believe most Americans do — that we should be building toward a future economy based on innovation and American ingenuity, not dirty fuels and pollution.

When the EPA comes to Kansas City this Wednesday, I hope everyone will make their voices heard by telling them that repealing the CPP is bad for families, bad for public health, bad for our economy, and bad for our future.

We need to tell the EPA to strengthen the Clean Power Plan, because the cost of repealing it is just too high.

This story was originally published February 18, 2018 at 8:30 PM with the headline "Tell the EPA: The economic cost of repealing the Clean Power Plan is just too high."