# cteongregg of tbe

**~niteb ~tateg**  M!lnsbington, 

## tll<IC 20515

The Honorable Gina McC arthy Admini s trator Environmenta l Protection Agency 1 200 Pennsylvania Ave nu e, NW Washington , D.C
. 20460 Dear Administrator McCarthy : June 15 ,20 15

We write regard in g t wo proposed Environmental Pro tection Agency ( "EPA") ru l es to reduce carbon d i oxid e em i ss io n s from power plant s as part of President Ob am a's C limate Ac tion P l an. The se rul es w ill r egu l ate greenhou se gas ("GHG") emissions from both exi sti ng' and new 2 

### s ta tion ary electric uti lit y gener ating units and are expec t ed to h ave w id e-ranging environmental and economic impacts. In promul gat in g t he se C lean Air Act rul es, EPA mu s t carefu ll y a nd lawfu ll y consider a ll the effe c ts of it s rulemaking, inclu ding the effects on endangered and threate n ed specie s li ste d under the E nd a ngered Specie s Act ("ESA")
. However, as th e rul em ak in g proce ss co nclud es, it appear s th at EPA h as not sa ti s fi ed it s obligations u nder secti on 7 of the ESA. The House Conunittee on Natural R eso urces and the Senate Co mmittee on Environment and Public Works ("EPW " ) h ave juri s diction over th e implementatio n of the ESA. The EP W Co mmittee al so h as jurisdiction over EPA' s programs in general and the C l ean A ir Act in particu l ar. Both Comm itt ees have been conducting overs i ght on E PA's lac k o f consultation in connection w ith these rul es.

1 

### Carbon Po lluti on Emission Guid e lines fo r Ex is ting S tati o n ary So urces: E lectri c Utilit y Generati n g U nit s, 79 Fed. R

eg. 3 4 ,83 0 (proposed June 18 , 20 14)
. 2 

### Standar d s of Performance fo r Greenhou se Gas Emission s From New Statio n ary Sources: E l ec tri c Utilit y Gener ati n g Un it s, 79 Fed
. Reg
. 1 430 (proposed Jan. 8, 20 14 ).

PR I NTED ON RECYCLED PA PER

### The Honorable Gina McCarthy June 15 , 2015 Page 2 On March 6, 2014 , a letter was se nt to EPA and th e Fish and Wildlife Service ("FWS") b y members of the EPW Committee ask in g 17 que s tions about the need for and scope of section 7 c o n s ultation for the proposed rule for new power plants
. The response from the FWS on May 27, 2014, confirmed that EPA had not reque s ted to engage in ESA consu lt ation. EPA's response , dated June 2 0 ,20 14 , said only that EPA would comply with the ESA. Neither r esponse exp l ained EPA's omission of a " may affect" determination for the proposed rule for new power plants nor included meaningful information n ecessary to address the EPW Committee's l egitimate oversight concerns . During a March 19 , 2015 , hearing before the Natural Resources Committee, FWS Director Dan Ashe testified that EPA had not initiated consultation with FWS on the impacts of the two power plant rules on ESA-listed species , including the endangered manatee. 3 

### Fo ll owi ng that hearing , a letter was sent to Director Ashe that sought to clarify whether FWS intended to request that EPA enter into ESA con s ultation with the FWS on th e two rule s . 4


### In his response, dated April 20 , 2015, Director Ashe confirmed that FWS had not requested that EPA initiate consultation on the power plant rules and did not intend to do so "because
.. . EPA has full knowledge oftheir Section 7 r espo nsibiliti es . " 5 

### This response raises more questions than it answers. According to section 7 of the ESA, federa l agencies must consult with the appropriate Ser vice whenever a discretionary agency acti o n, including a rulemaking , "may affect " a listed species or de s ignated critical habitat. 6 

### Federal courts routinely enjoin agency actions, including so me taken b y EPA, for failure to consult pur s u a nt to section 7 of the ESA. 7

3 

### Examining the Spending Priorities and Mi ss io n s of the U.S. Fis h and Wildlife S erv i ce and th e National Ocean ic and Atm osp h eric Administration in th e Pr es id e nt 's FY 20 16 Budge t Proposal : Hearing B efo r e th e Subcomms. on Federal Land s and Wat e r, Pow e r and Oceans of th e H. 

### Comm. o n Natural R esources, 114th Cong. (20 1 5). The man a tee was fir s t li s ted under th e ESA in 1967. 

### S ee Endangered Species, 32 Fe d. Re g. 4001 (Feb. 24, 1967). 4 Lette r from Rob Bi s hop , Chairman , H. Comm. o n Natural R eso urces, to Dan Ashe , Dir ec to r , U
. S
. F i s h and Wildlif e Serv ic e (Apr
. 2 , 20 15) , http ://n aturalreso ur ces. h o u se.g ov/upl oad e dfiles / le tte rtoas he_4

_2

_ 15
.pdf. 5 Letter from Dan As h e, Dir ec to r , U
. S
. Fi s h and Wildlife Service , to Ro b Bi s h op, Chairman , H
. Conun. o n Natural Reso urces (Apr. 20 , 20 15), http: //naturalresources .ho use.gov/uploadedfi l es/ a s h eresp o nse l etter.pdf. 6 Endangered S peci es Act § 7 , 16 U .S.C. 

### § 15 36. The age ncy mu s t co ns ult with th e Natio n a l Marine Fi sheri es Serv i ce ( " NMFS") if th e prop ose d ac tion will affect mari n e specie s, or the FW S if th e act io n w ill affec t non-marine sp ec ies. 7 

### S ee, e . g., W
. Water s h e d s Project v. Kraaye nbrink, 632 F
. 3d 4 72 (9 t h C ir. 20 11 ) (enjoining ame ndme nts to g raz ing reg ul a tion s); Was h
. To x ics Coal. v . En v tl. Prot. Age ncy, 41 3 F.3d 1 02 4 (9 t h Cir. 2005) (enjo inin g E PA ' s reg i s trati o n o f p es ti c ide s p e nding co mpliance with sec ti o n 7). The ESA 's c iti zen su it provis io n exp l i c itly approves injunction s f o r "vio la ti on [ s] of an y provi s io n o f thi s A c t o r r egul atio n i ss ue d und e r th e authority th ereof." 1 6 U.S.C. § 1540( g)( I )(A).

### The Ho norable Gina McCarth y June 15 ,2 015 P age 3 Further , ESA regulation s task each federal agency w ith "review[in g] it s actions at the earliest possi ble time to determine whether any action may affect li sted species or critical habitat. " 8 

### According to the FWS's Endangered Spec i es Co nsultation Handbook , which i s intended to guide federal agencies through the ESA's cons ultation requirements , it is appropriate for an agency to make a " may affect" determination " when [its] proposed action may pose any 

### effects on l isted species or designated critical habitat." 9 

### If the agency determines that its proposed action may have any effect on a li sted species , the agency is required to consult with the appropriate Service

- even if the effects are beneficial. 10


### In its " m ay affect" analysis for th e existing power plant rule , EPA determined that the rule is likely to have " positi v e" effect s becau se it will reduce overall GHG emis s io ns. '' Citing pre v iou s EPA analysis that found it was imp oss ibl e to d etermine the effects of reduced GHG s on s pecific specie s, EPA al so concluded th at the reduced GHG emissions brought about by th e new rule would cause only "v ery s mall change s . " 12 

### Additionally, EPA analogized the " remote" effects of the new rule to the N inth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in Ground Zero Cen ter for Non- Violent Action v. U. S Dept. of Navy, where the court found consultation on the pos s ibilit y of an accidental missile explosion was unnece ssary in part because the chance of the explosion occurring was infinitesimal. 1 3 

### Additionally , when EPA asserted that th e effects are "very small changes" and "remo te " it cited a Department of the Interior ( " DOl") memorandum regarding the

8 50 C .F.R
. § 4 02. 14(a) (e mpha sis added). 9 U .S
. Fi s h a nd Wildlife Service , Endangered Spec ies Conservat io n H andb ook xvi (emphasi s in orig in al). 1 

# °

K aruk Trib e v. U.S. Forest Serv. , 68 1 F. 3d l 006, 10 II (9 1 h Cir. 20 12) ("T he ESA requires con s ult a ti o n w ith the Fi s h and W il d lif e Service or the NOAA Fi s h e ri es Service fo r a ny 'agency action ' that ' ma y affec t ' a li s ted s pecie s o r its crit ical habitat. "). See also Conservatio n Cong. v. U .S. Forest Serv., No
. CIV
. S-13-0832 , 20 13 U.S. Di st. LEXIS 127671, at *55, 60 (E.D. Ca l. Sept. 6, 20 1 3) (exp la inin g th at sectio n 7 co n s ult ati o n i s required "[s ] o long as a [li s t ed s pecie s] is prese nt" and that "[e]ven a beneficial effec t on the s p ecies o r habi tat 'triggers the requ ire m en t. "'). 11 Carbo n Pollution Emission Guideline s f or Existing S t ati onary Sources, supra note I , at 34,933. 1 2 

### !d. at 34,934. In th e ESA sec tion of th e propo se d rul e for ex ist ing p ower plant s , E PA refers to the effec t s of its ac tio n as "very small " and "rem o te." Th ese te rms ap pe a r to be drawn from consultation r eg ulatio n s pro mul ga ted und er th e previou s administration
. S ee Inte ra ge ncy Coo p erati o n Und e r th e Endangered Spec ies Act, 73 Fed. R eg. 76 ,272 ( D ec. 16 , 2008 )
. See also KRI ST I NA ALEXANDER & M. LYNNE CORN, CONG. R ESEA R CH SERV., RL 34641 , C H ANGES TO THE CONSU LTATIO N R EGU L A

TIO NS OF THE EN DA NGE RED SPECIES ACT (ESA) 9 (2009). However, thos e r egu lati o n s were resc ind ed in 2009 s h ortly af ter Pr es id en t Obama to ok offi ce and the 1 986 co nsu ltati o n rules were re in s tate d
. See Inte ragen cy Coo pe ration Und er the Endangered Spe c ie s Act, 74 Fed
. Re g. 20,42 1 (May 4 , 2009). EPA's appare nt reliance o n a r esc inded rule an d related l egal g uidance (i.e., the 2008 DOl memo ra ndum , infra no te 14) cas ts d o ubt o n Direc to r As h e's confi d e n ce in EPA's " full knowl e d ge of their Section 7 r espo n s ibilitie s." 13 What EPA fa il s to m e ntion i s th at sec ti on 7 co n s ult ation was n o t required primari ly "beca u se the Navy lacks th e di sc re tion to cease Trident II o p e rati ons a t Bangor for the protection o f the threatene d spec ies." Ground Zero C tr. for Non-Violent Ac tion v. U.S. D ept. of Navy , 383 F.3d 1082, 1 092 (9 'h C ir. 2002). T h e court found that Pr es ident C linto n - not the Navy- de tem1ined w he re th e s ubmarine b ase wo uld be locate d , so th e ri s k s inh erent to Trident mi ss ile s were attributable to th e Pres id e nt' s decision an d not t o the Navy's action. I d.

### The H onorable Gina McCarthy June 15 ,20 15 Page4 polar bear 14 

### and a prior EPA rule. 15 

### EPA conveniently did not mention that these analyses have s ub s tantial focus upon the difficulty of tracing th e effects of GHG emissions from a single source

- not from the entire electricity generating capacity of the United States. After di s missing these " positive ," "ve ry s mall," and "remote" effects of the rule due to overall reductions in GHG emissions, EPA then determined that section 7 consultation was unnecessary. 16 

### It is clear that EPA entirely neglected to assess the ground -l evel effects of its regulation. The mo st recent government anal ys is project s that retirement s of coal-fired power plant s will double b y 2020 as a result of the rule. 17 

### EPA it se lf ha s conducted anal ysis that also anticipates the early re tirement of coal-fired generating units. 18 

### Di sruption and early retirement of operational power plants are precisely the kind of real-world impacts that EPA must assess before promulgating a rule. Specifically , EPA must analyze the effects of its action

- including the closure of power plant s - through the lens of the ESA.

14 Memorandum fro m Dav id Long ly Bernhardt, Solicitor , U.S. Department of the Interi o r re: "G uid an ce on the applicability of the Endangered Species Act's Cons ultati o n Requireme nts to Prop ose d Actions Invo lvin g th e emissions of Greenhouse Gases" (Oct. 3, 2008). 1 5 Environmen tal Protec ti on Agency , Light Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Standards and Corpo r ate Average Fuel Eco n omy Standards Response to Comment Document for Joint Rulemaking at 4-10 2 (Docket EPA

- OAR-HQ-2009

- 4782)
. 16 While EPA appare ntl y feels that the effects ofGHGs on specie s are negligible , the Services responsible f or listing species under th e ESA have found that climate change or global warming affects a plethora of e ndan gered spec ies. According to recovery plans from the USFWS and NMFS , the following species are or may be affec ted by climate change or g lobal wa rn1ing: Akiapolaau , Akohekohe, Atlantic s almon , Bay checkerspot butterfly, Butte Cou nty meadowfoam , Chinook sal mon , Chi r icahu a l eopard frog , chum sa lmon , Colusa g ra ss , co nservan c y fairy shrimp , Co ntra Costa go ldfields, delta green ground beetle, desert tortoise , few-flowered navarretia, fleshy owl's clover, Gowen cypress , g r een's tu ctoria, hairy orc utt grass , Hawaii 'Akepa, Hawaii c re e p er , H olmgren milk -vetch , Ho over's broomspurge, Karner blue , Kauai akia loa, Kauai 'o'o , Lake Co unty stonecro p , large Kauai thru sh , Laysan duck, Loch Lomond coyo te -thi s tle , longhorn fairy shrimp, many-flowere d navarre tia , mat-forming quillwort , Maui 'akepa , Maui parrotbill, Moloka'i creeper, Moloka'i thrush , Mount Graham red squirrel, Nukupu'u , Oahu alauahio , Oahu 'elepaio, o r ca,'O 'u, palila, Pitc h er ' s thistle , Po'ouli , Puaiohi, Quino c he c kers pot butterfly , Sac rame nto o r c utt g ra ss, San Joaquin Valley orcutt grass, Shivwitz milk-vetch, short-tail e d Albatross, s l ender orc utt grass, soft- le aved Indian paintbrush , Solano grass , Spalding's catchfly, sperm w h a l e, steelhead trout, Steller sea- lion , verna l p oo l fairy shrimp, verna l pool tadpole s hrimp , water Howellia , white abalone , whooping crane. Recovery plan s c an be found at: http ://www.fws.gov /endangered/species / recovery-plans.html. 1 7 U.S. Energy Inf ormation Administration , Analysis of the Impac ts of the Clean Power Plan 16 (May 2015) ("Projected coal plant r et irement s ove r th e 2014-40 period, w hi ch are 40GW in the AE020 15 Reference case (most before 20 17 ) , increase to 90 GW (nearly all by 2020) in th e Ba s e Policy case (CPP)
. "). 18 Compar e IPM System Summary Report , Base Ca s e (EPA-HQ-OAR-20 13-0602-0223) with IPM System Summary Report , Option I State (EPA-HQ-OAR-20 13-0602-0227)
. In all sce nari os , EPA expec t s power secto r coa l use to dec line. See Summary of IPM Analysi s of Indi vidual Building Block s for lll (d) (EPA-HQ-OAR-20 13- 0602

- 047 1)
.

### The Honorable Gina McCarthy June 15 ,2 015 Pag e 5 One power pl a nt th at is likely to retire a t least so me of it s coal-po wered generating unit s du e to EPA's rule i s Big Bend Po wer Station near Tampa , Florida. 19 

### Big Bend ha s been d es ign ated as a primary wann-water manate e r e fuge , 20 

### is surrounded by a manatee sanctuary , 21 

### and ha s a manatee protection plan appended to it s National Pollutant Di scharg e Elimination System ("NPDES") p ermit. 22 

### Generation at the C rys tal River Plant, another coal-fired power plant in F lorida that has been de s ignated as a m anatee refuge 23 

### and has a manatee protection plan appended to it s NPDES permit , 2 4 

### may also be di srupted b y the rule. C learl y, power plant s like Big Bend and Crystal River are critical to the s urvival of th e manatee . The F WS's own M anatee R ecovery Pl an repeatedl y s tres s e s the importance of the warm - water refu ges c r eated by the pl ant s . In fact, one of the primary objectives of the Service's Manatee Recovery Plan is to " protect ... manate e habitats , " including " industrial warm-water r efuge s . " 25 

### FWS also estimates that almost two-third s of manatee s rel y on po wer plant s when the water temperature plunges. 26 

### Without a warm-water refuge, manatees th at are s ubjected to cold experience "s kin lesions, fa t depletion , internal abscesses, gastroi nte s tinal di so rders , constipation and seco ndary inf ections " and de ath ? 7


### A regulation th at cause s de signated man atee refuge s like Big Bend or Crystal Ri ver to shut down or alter their operations wo uld s ignificantl y and ad v ersel y affect the endangered manatee. 2 8

19 Sea n Cocker h am, 

### Do 

### it for th e manatees, GOP lawmaker says of protecting coal plants, M CC L A

T

CHY DC , Mar. 1 9 , 20 15 ("Tampa Electri c spokeswoman Cherie Jacobs said the f our unit s a t the Bi g Bend P ower S tation , a major a ttractio n for manat ees a nd t o uri s t s, are curre ntl y expec ted to las t fro m b etwee n 2035 a nd 2050. But the proposed n ew ca rb o n pollution rule co uld r esu lt in 'one o r more unit s' closed in 2025 in stead , she sai d ."). 20 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser v ice, Florida Manatee R ecovery Plan 16-1 7 (200 1), http : //www. fws.gov / n ort hfl orida!Man atee/Recovery%20 Plan/200 l

_ FWS

_ Florida
_ Ma natee_ Reco ve ry_ Pl a n .pd f. 21 50 C.F .R
. 

### § 17.108
. 22 Big Bend Power Station , NPDES P erm it No. FL0000817 ("The Pennitt ee sha ll continue complian ce w ith the facility 's Manatee Protection Plan approved by the D e partment on A u gust 6, 2003, and as a m e nded thereafter ."). 23 Florida Manatee Recovery Plan, 

### supra note 20, at 1 6- 17
. 24 Crysta l River Plant , NPDES Permit No. FLOOOO 15 9 and FL0036366. 25 Florida Manatee Re covery Pl an, 

### supra note 20, at 83-84. 26 

### Id. at 28. 27 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conserva tion Co mmi ss ion, Florida Manatee Cold -rela t ed Unusual Mortality E v ent, January-April2010, Final R eport iii (Apr. 1 9, 20 11) , http: // myfwc.com/medi a/ 15 36 1 84 / 20 I 0

_ Manatee_ Co ld _r e l ated
_ UME

_ F ina l. pdf. 28 Other likely effec ts of EPA's p owe r plant rules, including increased renewable energy generatio n , m ay also affec t ESA-protected species. F or examp le , FW S ci tes an article s how ing that fo r every m egawatt of e ne rgy genera ted by wi nd turbin es in th e Un ited States and Canada, 11. 6 bats will di e annually. F i sh and Wildlife Serv i ce, Indiana Bat Fatalities at W ind Energy Facilitie s (20 14) , http : //www.fws.gov/midwest/windlwildlifeimpacts/ inb afa ta lit ies .html (ci tin g Paul M. C rya n , 

### Wind T u rbines as Landscape Imp e dim ents to the Migrat01y Conn ectivi ty of Bats , 41 ENYTL. L. 355 , 364 (20 11))
.

### The Honorable Gina McCarthy June 15 ,2 015 Page 6 We are astounded that EPA omitted any reference to the ESA or the section 7 consultation requirement in the proposed rule for new power plants ? 9 

### It 

### is unclear why EPA would consider the impacts of one rule on listed species and conclude there were "positive" effects from GHG reductions, but decline to consider the effects of the companion rule , which will also reduce GHG emissions. 30


### In order for the Committees to better understand EPA's determination that section 7 consultation was unnecessary for the proposed rule for existing power plants, as we ll as the decision not to include any ESA analysis in the proposed rule for new power plants , please provide the following documents and information by Monday , June 22, 2015: 1) If the likely effects of EPA's action on ESA -li sted species or habitat will be "positive," would those " positive" effects be best described as "who ll y beneficial," " in s i gnificant," "discountable," or "no effect?" Please explain your answer in detail. 2) If the likely effects of EPA's action on ESA-listed species or habitat will be " remote" or "very small," wou ld those effects be best described as "wholly beneficial," "insignificant," "discountable," or " no effect?" Please explain your answer in detail. 3) All records, documents, analyses, memoranda, and communications concerning the effects of the proposed rule for existing power plants on ESA- li sted species or habitat, including EPA's consideration of its ESA obligations with regard to this rule. 4) All records , documents, analyses , memoranda, and communications concerning the effects of the proposed rule for new power plants on ESA-listed species or habitat, including EPA's consideration of its ESA obligations with regard to this rule. 5) All documents reflecting communications invol vi ng the Department of the Interior , including the FWS, concerning the applicability of the ESA and /or section 7 consultation

29 Standards of Performance for Greenhou se Gas Emissions From New Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units, s upra note 2. Compare 79 Fed. Reg. 34,830, 34,832 (including "Endangered Species Act" in li st of"lmpacts of the Propo se d Action") , with 79 Fed. Reg. 1430, 1432 (o mitting "Endangered Species Act" in li s t of

" Impacts of the Proposed Action"). 3 0 Thi s i s not the fir s t incon si stent position EPA has t aken on the consultation requirements for power plant rule s. Ju s t last year , EPA concluded co n s ultation with th e Services on its Coo li ng Water Intak e Structure ("CWIS") rule, another wide-ranging regulation affecting power plant s. The re s ulting programmatic Biol og ical Opinion ("BiOp") issued by FWS and NMFS specifically contemplated e ffe c ts on endangered species, including the manatee . It al so analyzed the impacts of thermal discharges. The very ex iste nce of this BiOp confirms that changes to power plant operations ha ve effects on ESA-protected species that merit consu ltation under sectio n 7 -a fact that EPA now seems to den y.

### The Honorable Gina McCarthy June 15,2015 Page 7 for the proposed rules for new or existing power plants. 6) All documents reflecting communications in vo lving the Council for Environmental Quality concerning the applicability of the ESA and / or section 7 consultation for the proposed rules for new or existing power plants. In s tructions and definitions for re sponding to this request are enclosed. Pl ease have your staff contact Rob Gordon or Jessica Conrad with the House Committee on Natural Re sources at (202) 225-7107, or Byron Brown with the Senate Committee on En vironment and Public Works at (202) 224-6167 with any que s tions.
Sincerely,



# ~

Rob Bishop Chairman House Committee on Natural Resources hairman Senate Committee on Environment and

Public Work s

cc: Raul Grijalva , Ranking Member, Comm ittee o n Natura l Resources