Policy Engagement Overview
InfluenceMap's database covers roughly 500 companies and 250 industry associations globally, most of which are regularly scanned for evidence of climate policy engagement. The current state of corporate engagement on this regulation is summarized below. The graph to the right indicates InfluenceMap's capture of corporate positions on this policy, ranging from opposition to strong support. This page was last updated May 24, 2023.
The EPA proposed formal rules in May 2023 and has opened a 60-day public comment period.
The proposed rules have already attracted reactions from industry:
-
The CEO of Advanced Energy United strongly supported the proposal.
-
Early responses from the utility sector has been mixed, with PG&E offering broad support while Alliant, American Electric Power, CMS subsidiary Consumers Energy, DTE, Duke, FirstEnergy, Southern Company, WEC Energy subsidiary We Energies, and Xcel took unclear positions, with many stating they need to review the proposal before disclosing a clear position.
-
Edison Electric Institute took no clear position on the standards, stating that power sector emissions will go down “regardless of the rule.” In a press release, however, EEI President Tom Kuhn stated that the group will assess the rule while advocating for a role for new fossil gas generation in the energy transition.
-
The National Mining Association was not supportive, with CEO Rich Nolan reported as characterizing the rules “an onslaught” designed to “shut down the coal fleet prematurely.” A day before the EPA’s announcement, NMA published a press release that suggested the EPA was acting beyond its legal boundary in proposing the rules. America’s Power CEO Michelle Bloodworth also opposed the rules and argued that the standards would result in “premature” coal plant retirements.
-
The US Chamber of Commerce also criticized the rules, emphasizing that they go “too far, too fast” and would harm the entire economy. Similarly, American Petroleum Institute (API) published a press release that opposed the proposed rules.
Previously, the pre-proposal attracted a significant number of comments from the energy and utilities sectors, summarized below. Comments advocated for flexibility in compliance, exemptions for coal-fired retirements, and a long-term role for fossil gas in the energy transition. More details are available in InfluenceMap’s April 2023 briefing.
- In November 2022 comments, the Edison Electric Institute (EEI) defended the role of fossil gas in the energy mix, asking the EPA to “set standards that acknowledge that natural gas generation will continue to play an essential role.” Later, in February 2023, EEI advocated for compliance exemptions for coal plants that are already slated for retirement and pushed for an expanded role for hydrogen without clarifying its position on decarbonizing hydrogen production.
- The American Petroleum Institute similarly urged the EPA to facilitate the construction of new gas power plants, and the National Mining Association advocated for a prominent role for coal and suggested that any standards based on fuel-switching would be beyond the legal boundary of the EPA.
- In December 2022 comments, Southern Company advocated against imposing more ambitious limits on existing coal and fossil gas plants and emphasized that the EPA should facilitate the construction of new fossil gas infrastructure.
- In December 2022 comments, the Power Generators Air Coalition (PGen) pushed for flexibility in compliance – including multiple exemptions for existing fossil fuel plants – and advocated for an expedited process to build new fossil gas cycle combustion turbines. (See our April 2023 briefing for more details on the members of PGen).
- In February 2023 comments, the Class of ’85 Regulatory Response Group (Class of '85) advocated for the EPA to support flexible compliance pathways, including exemptions for coal plants scheduled to retire, as well as standards that facilitate a prominent role for fossil gas. (See our April 2023 briefing for more details on the Class of '85 and its utility members).
- In December 2022 comments, The Utility Information Exchange of Kentucky (UIEK), whose members include AEP, Duke, and PPL Corp subsidiaries, emphasized concerns with a rapid energy transition and appeared to advocate for upcoming power plant rules to support a long-term role for fossil gas.
- In November 2022 comments, the Western Energy Supply and Transmission Associates, whose members include subsidiaries of Berkshire Hathaway, appeared to advocate for flexible standards as well as a continued role for coal.
- Higher scoring U.S. utilities tracked by InfluenceMap, such as Edison International subsidiary Southern California Edison, Exelon, Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), and Consolidated Edison, all appeared absent on the pre-proposal.
