POPP Act

I 118TH CONGRESS 1ST SESSION H. R. 4038 To prohibit the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from finalizing, implementing, or enforcing a proposed rule related to new source performance standards and emissions guidelines for greenhouse gas emissions from certain stationary sources, and for other purposes. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES JUNE 12, 2023 Mrs. MILLER of West Virginia introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce A BILL To prohibit the Administrator of the Environmental Protec- tion Agency from finalizing, implementing, or enforcing a proposed rule related to new source performance stand- ards and emissions guidelines for greenhouse gas emis- sions from certain stationary sources, and for other pur- poses. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa- 1 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 2 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 3 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Protect Our Power 4 Plants Act’’ or the ‘‘POPP Act’’. 5 VerDate Sep 11 2014 23:10 Jul 12, 2023 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H4038.IH H4038 pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB 2 •HR 4038 IH SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 1 Congress finds that— 2 (1) the decision of the Supreme Court of the 3 United States in West Virginia v. Environmental 4 Protection Agency (2022) states that Congress must 5 speak clearly if Congress wishes to assign to an 6 agency decisions of vast economic and political sig- 7 nificance; 8 (2) Congress has not provided the Environ- 9 mental Protection Agency with authorization for the 10 proposed rule of the Environmental Protection 11 Agency entitled ‘‘New Source Performance Stand- 12 ards for Greenhouse Gas Emissions From New, 13 Modified, and Reconstructed Fossil Fuel-Fired Elec- 14 tric Generating Units; Emission Guidelines for 15 Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Existing Fossil 16 Fuel-Fired Electric Generating Units; and Repeal of 17 the Affordable Clean Energy Rule’’ (88 Fed. Reg. 18 33240 (May 23, 2023)), a proposed rule that is in- 19 tended to completely reshape the electricity grid and 20 therefore has vast economic and political signifi- 21 cance; 22 (3) section 111 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 23 7411) requires the best system of emission reduction 24 to be adequately demonstrated; 25 VerDate Sep 11 2014 23:10 Jul 12, 2023 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H4038.IH H4038 pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB 3 •HR 4038 IH (4) the carbon capture and clean hydrogen 1 technologies proposed as the best system of emission 2 reduction have not been commercially utilized, are 3 not cost-effective, and are not feasible, and are 4 therefore not adequately demonstrated; and 5 (5) the proposed rule described in paragraph 6 (2) is an illegal interpretation of section 111 of the 7 Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7411) and has not been 8 authorized by that section or any other provision of 9 Federal law. 10 SEC. 3. PROPOSED NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STAND- 11 ARDS AND EMISSIONS GUIDELINES FOR 12 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS FROM CER- 13 TAIN STATIONARY SOURCES. 14 The Administrator of the Environmental Protection 15 Agency may not finalize, implement, or enforce the pro- 16 posed rule titled ‘‘New Source Performance Standards for 17 Greenhouse Gas Emissions From New, Modified, and Re- 18 constructed Fossil Fuel-Fired Electric Generating Units; 19 Emission Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas Emissions From 20 Existing Fossil Fuel-Fired Electric Generating Units; and 21 Repeal of the Affordable Clean Energy Rule’’ (88 Fed. 22 Reg. 33240 (May 23, 2023)) or a substantially similar 23 rule. 24 Æ VerDate Sep 11 2014 23:10 Jul 12, 2023 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6301 E:\BILLS\H4038.IH H4038 pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB