Following a relatively quiet summer, focus has once again shifted to the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan (CPP). The Supreme Court’s decision to rule Stay on the Plan on Feb. 9, 2016 effectively put all action on the policy to rest. Finally, the time has come for supporters and detractors to make their cases for and against the Plan. In an Amicus brief submitted prior to the stay, 60 Plus, Hispanic Leadership Fund, and several other organizations with the aim of protecting our nation’s most vulnerable citizens, argued against the Clean Power Plan for the threat that it poses to those who live on meager fixed incomes. As the Plan nears its day in court, it remains an overreaching threat to the livelihoods of seniors and minority citizens.
The CPP would force utilities to charge higher prices across the country. For those in middle and high-income communities, an increase in monthly electricity bills might go unnoticed. It may represent such an insignificant portion of a family’s income that the change is largely negligent. For many in our country, this is not the case. Senior citizens spend disproportionate amounts of their monthly incomes on electricity. Many live on fixed incomes, like social security, that do not adjust for inflation, and certainly not for increased utility costs. For seniors an increase in a necessity like electrical power takes away from other expenses- and that can mean skimping on medications or domestic care. With seniors living in such financial fragility, it is truly irresponsible on the part of the government to propose an increase to an essential component to living.
{mosads}The Plan poses an equivalently disproportionate threat to minority communities and their families. As it is, Hispanic and Black families make up a very high portion of those living in poverty in the United States. In 2014, the numbers were 24 and 26 percent respectively, and the CPP would only exacerbate this condition. Not only do Black and Hispanic families live in poverty significantly more often than other groups, they spend considerably more of their income on essentials like food, clothing, and utilities. While an increase in utility costs for some families may mean tying up discretionary spending, for many Black and Hispanic families that same rise could mean a lack of ability to put food on the table.
Despite the clear threat that the Plan poses to America’s most vulnerable demographics, it does almost nothing to quell its problems. Language in the Plan offers hopes of Renewable energy programs that would supplant the rising electricity costs it creates, not to mention existing jobs in the power sector, particularly coal, that it would eliminate, but these are hollow offerings that would mean little to a single mother trying to support her family or an elderly person living by their limited social security. The Plan also mentions existing state, local and federal programs to help low-income households with their energy bills, but these too are ambiguous offers that present little real hope. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy herself has even admitted that the Plan will impact low-income communities the hardest.
The Clean Power Plan, some call it a cruel Power Plan because it remains a serious threat to low-income populations across the United States. As the Plan heads into Oral Arguments before the D.C Circuit Court, it has never been more important for these groups to make their voices heard. It is the responsibility of elected officials to craft policy which will elevate our most vulnerable citizens- not oppress them. With a clearly negative turn towards senior citizens, Hispanics, Blacks and other low-income minority groups, the Clean Power Plan is a threat to entirely too many citizens to be upheld.
Jim Martin is founder and Chairman of the 60 Plus Association. Mario Lopez is president of the Hispanic Leadership Fund.
The views expressed by authors are their own and not the views of The Hill.