WASHINGTON, D.C. — Opposition is growing on Capitol Hill to a new rule for power plants meant to reduce carbon emissions.

On April 25 the EPA announced the finalized rule, which requires coal-fired power plants that plan to keep running past 2039 to reduce or capture 90% of their carbon emissions by 2032. The rule is set to take effect on July 8.

The U.S. currently has 210 coal-powered plants, which provide 16% of the nation’s electricity. The electric power sector is the nation's second largest source of greenhouse gases, according to the EPA.

Power companies argued the grid would not be ready to provide adequate electricity if generation facilities close due to the rule. Cardinal Power Plant in Brilliant, Ohio, for example, would likely shut down if the rule takes effect, according to Jim Matheson, CEO of the National Rural Cooperative Association (NRCA).

“I think you need more time. You need technology to evolve, and you need a lot more electric transmission in this country to move power around,” Matheson said. “And this is in the face of massively growing electric demand in this country.”

Critics of the rule, such as Rep. Bob Latta, R-Ohio, who sits on the House Energy and Committee, said the rule would also raise costs for consumers.

“It’s not, I need energy. I have to have affordable energy,” Latta said. “And if they're going to be out there trying to shut down our natural gas and our clean coal fired plants that they're working on right now, it's going to put us behind the proverbial eight ball out there.”

While many Republican lawmakers have long opposed the rule, Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio also recently came out against it.

“It's going to, it's going to affect the grid. It's going to affect costs for rural Ohioans, and the technology is simply not proven that this is going to improve the environment,” Brown said. “So the administration should wait, do this right. Work with us on this rule so that electric co-ops stay in business, so that electricity is reliable, so that electricity is affordable.”

As Brown is locked in a touch battle for reelection, supporting the rule would have left him open to charges that he backs policies raising prices for consumers.

Brown said he would vote for a Senate measure to overturn the rule, while Latta co-sponsored an identical measure in the House led by Rep. Troy Balderson, R-Ohio.

Brown said opposing the rule did not go against his goal of reducing carbon emissions because carbon capture may not actually capture much carbon. Though the EPA claims the technology is proven, one study by a researcher at Stanford University found it only captures about 10% of total emissions.

“This is not a proven way. I mean, the technology is not really proven. And to me, of course, I want to make progress in emissions. I take a backseat to nobody in fighting for the environment,” Brown said.

Environmental groups defended the efficacy of carbon capture technology, though it is only used in large scale at one U.S. plant currently.

“It's true that it's not in widespread use, but that's not the requirement here,” said Dan Lashof, director of World Resources Institute US. “It has been used in a variety of applications, both in the United States and around the world.”

Lashof added the rule was merely speeding up a green transition already happening due to falling renewable energy prices.

“Solar and wind are far cheaper, as well as cleaner than continuing to operate the aging coal fired power plants, which are the main, pollution sources that this rule is designed to address,” he said.