EPA Power Plant Rule: Statement of Harm Summaries

​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​As part of the lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency’s power plant rul​​e​, NRECA and 10 electric cooperatives submitted statements of harm​ to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit​ ​​outlining how the rule ​threatens reliable and affordable electricity. Follow the links below to review summaries of these statements.​​

Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corp.

AECC co-owns coal-based electric generating units that will be affected by t​he EPA’s power plant rule. Retirement by 2032 is the only option for these two plants. This forces AECC to immediately begin spending money to replace the power generated by the plants. The cost of these investments will be passed on to its consumers. Read more​​​

Associated Electric Cooperative Inc.

As early as next year, the rates that Associated Electric charges would increase more than 50% above the increase that would be expected without the EPA’s power plant rule. Those increases are a direct result o​​​f the massive costs that the rule creates. Associated Electric will be forced to pass those costs on to its consumers, at least 40% of whom live in poverty.​ Read more

Basin Electric Power Cooperative

By forcing power plants Basin Electric Power Cooperative owns or receives power from to retire early, the EPA power plant rule seriously threatens Basin Electric’s ability to provide the power its member co​​-o​​ps need to keep the lights on at a cost their members can afford.​ Read more​

Buckeye Power Inc.

Given the loss of baseload power, the inability for new coal or gas-fired plants to meet the level of carbon capture required by the power ​plant rule and the time required to build even intermittent renewables or low-capacity turbines, Buckeye Power expects reliability issues and significantly higher rates for its consumers if the rule goes into effect.​ Read more​

Central Electric Power Cooperative Inc.

Without the ability to urgently proceed with planning and permitting new natural gas combined cycle projects, South Carolina utilities will be ill-equipped to keep up with the Palmetto State’s rapid growth and soa​ring energy demands, much less move forward with plans to retire coal-fired power plants. Read more​

Dairyland Power Cooperative

Dairyland Power Cooperative’s only choice under the EPA power plant rule is to retire its John P. Madgett Station by 2032. No matter what source Dairyland chooses for replacement power, it will soon begin incurring expenses that will be passed on to its consumers. Read more

East Kentucky Power Cooperative

East Kentucky Power Cooperative generates more than half of its electricity from power plants that would be affected by the EPA power plant rule. If the rule goes into effect, the communities that rely on EKPC are likely to find themselves with less reliable power or without the means to pay for it, or both.​ Read more​

Golden Spread Electric Cooperative Inc.

The EPA power plant rule will hurt the continued development of renewable resources in geographic areas served by Golden Spread and other co-ops. By strictly limiting how much of the time new gas power plants can run, the rule ignores their important role in ensuring grid reliability and efficiency, especially as the use of solar and wind increase.​ Read more​


The EPA power plant rule jeopardizes the ability of co-ops to fulfill their mission to provide affordable, reliable and safe electricity to their consumer-members. Because co-ops mus​​t make business decisions now to comply with the EPA power plant rule, the rule will have immediate and irreparable economic consequences if it is not stayed until the courts have had a full opportunity for review.​ Read more​