Nov 28, 2017
U.S. repeal of carbon rule criticized in coal country | Reuters
Retired Miner With Black Lung Begs EPA To Save Power Plant Rules: ‘We're Literally Dying' | CNN
Nov 2, 2017
EPA Announces Public Hearing on Proposed Repeal of Clean Power Plan | epa.gov
Oct 10, 2017
E.P.A. Announces Repeal of Major Obama-Era Carbon Emissions Rule | The New York Times
EPA chief says White House to roll back Obama-era clean power plan | PBS Newshour
John Yang of the PBS Newshour spoke with former EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy (in the Obama administration) and Robert Murray, the founder, chairman, and CEO of Murray Energy Corporation, the nation's largest privately held coal company. Here are key excerpts from the interview:
McCarthy:
Well, I was surprised that they decided to repeal the rule without proposing anything else in its stead, because, as the science dictates and as the law dictates, the EPA's obligated to regulate carbon pollution from this sector.
...our Clean Power Plan was really based on a solid understanding of how the energy system was working. It gave states maximum flexibility to achieve reductions. And it recognized sort of the low-cost renewable and energy efficiency that was coming into the market, and it anticipated the reasonable and cost-effective reductions we could achieve without threatening the energy system itself. But it appears that the legal interpretation they want to take right now is that the administrator is supposed to be blind to how the energy system works, and instead the only things states are going to be allowed to do is look at their coal facilities, shift consumer money into keeping them alive, even if they're not marketable...
But what this could do is create uncertainty. That's what the utility industry doesn't want, because they make long-term investments...They know we're moving to clean energy, but the worry is, will uncertainty cause us to hesitate? Will uncertainty cause us to not invest in the next tranche of great technologies and cede all of that to other countries, so they can claim the jobs, they can make the economic growth impacts that are associated with looking to the future, instead of going back in time to a technology that is no longer marketable?
Murray:
We fully support President Trump and Administrator Pruitt's decision to repeal the Clean Power Plan.
Gina McCarthy and Barack Obama destroyed reliable, low-cost electricity in America, and Donald Trump and Scott Pruitt are trying to bring it back.
...carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. I have 4,000 scientists that tell me that it is not a pollutant.
Yang:
You don't see climate change as an issue or a problem at all, despite what other scientists say?
Murray:
I do not. I do not, because I listen to 4,000 scientists, and who tell me that mankind is not affecting climate change. Climate change has occurred over the cycle for decades. The Antarctic ice field is larger than it has ever been right now. The Earth has cooled for the last 19 years. It's a natural cycle.
Source:
(October 10, 2017). "What revoking the Clean Power Plan means, from both sides". PBS Newshour. Retrieved 2017-10-10.
Jun 5, 2017
Factcheck.org disputes Scott Pruitt's statement about the number of new coal jobs, stated yesterday on NBC's Meet the Press, where Pruitt said:
...since the fourth quarter of last year to most recently added almost 50,000 jobs in the coal sector. In the month of May alone, almost 7,000 jobs.
Factcheck asked Pruitt where he got his numbers from, but did not get a response.
Factcheck looked at mining statistics put out by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and discovered the following:
- U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics mining job data includes data for all types of mining (gas, oil, metal ores, coal and nonmetallic mineral mining and quarrying), as well as jobs created in a category called "support activities for mining."
- U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics mining job data shows that only 1,300 new coal jobs were created since December, 2016
Source:
Todd, Chuck. (June 4, 2017). "Meet the Press - June 4, 2017". NBC News. Retrieved 2017-10-10.
Kiely, Eugene. (June 5, 2017). "Scott Pruitt and Coal Jobs". Factcheck. Retrieved 2017-10-10.
Jun 4, 2017
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt was interviewed by host Chuck Todd on NBC's Meet the Press. Here's a summary of the interview:
Pruitt:
Paris [the Paris Agreement] is a bad deal for this country [the U.S.]...Why did China and India not have to take any steps until 2030? Why did India condition their CO2 reductions upon receiving $2.5 trillion of aid in the agreement? We were going to take steps, front loading our costs while the rest of the world waited to reduce their CO2 footprint. That's the reason it put us at a very much an economic disadvantage internationally.
... we are at pre-1994 levels today with respect to our CO2 footprint.
...from 2001 to 2014 we reduced our emissions by over 18 percent in this country...
It was American innovation and technology that prompted the reductions in CO2.
...it's been estimated by the Heritage study that Paris alone would cause a contraction of $2.5 trillion of gross domestic product over 10 years.
Todd:
That made a lot of negative assumptions. You wanted to make assumptions that didn't anticipate job growth in other industries like solar and that the innovation wouldn't anticipate other job growth and that that would balance out.
Todd then plays a recording of Al Gore saying the following:
The loss of jobs in the coal industry started with the mechanization of the coal industry. Natural gas started displacing coal and the fossil fuel sector. And promising to re-create the 19th century is not a visionary strategy for a successful 21st century.
Todd:
Is he [Al Gore] right that you guys are making a false promise though to some of these fossil fuel industries?
Pruitt:
Dead wrong. Because the numbers show exactly the opposite in fact since the fourth quarter of last year to most recently added almost 50,000 jobs in the coal sector. In the month of May alone, almost 7,000 jobs.
Pruitt goes on to talk about how the U.S. needs "fuel diversity", "stability", and "consistency" for its power grid (the need for hydrocarbons), which will help keep the cost of power low.
Todd quotes Pruitt as saying "Boy it [the Paris Agreement] should have been ratified, it should have been debated in the public. It should have been sent to the United States Senate.", then asks Pruitt why the Trump administration chose to back out of the Paris Agreement and not have the decision debated in the Senate. Pruitt's reply essentially reiterates what he said earlier - that the Paris Agreement is a bad deal for the U.S.
Regarding the decision by the Trump administration to back out of the Paris Agreement, Todd asks:
This was a political decision in this respect?
Pruitt:
It was not a political decision. It was a right for this country, Chuck. This is a decision that was right for this country from a jobs perspective, an economy perspective, and an environmental perspective.
When asked by Todd if CO2 is the primary cause of climate change, Pruitt responds:
It's a cause of many. It's a cause like methane, and water vapor, and the rest.
Source:
Todd, Chuck. (June 4, 2017). "Meet the Press - June 4, 2017". NBC News. Retrieved 2017-10-10.
Apr 13, 2017
EPA's Pruitt to coal miners: 'Regulatory assault is over' | The Hill
Sep 27, 2016
The U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C heard oral arguments in the case of West Virginia vs. E.P.A, a lawsuit that now includes 28 states and hundreds of companies and industry groups which oppose the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan. The suit is being heard by 10 judges, six appointed by Democratic presidents and four by Republican presidents. The eleventh judge, Merrick Garland, has recused himself because he has been nominated by Obama to replace Antonin Scalia.
Appeals Court Hears Challenge to Obama’s Climate Change Rules | The New York Times
Obama power plant rules face key test in court | Reuters
Feb 10, 2016
Yesterday's U.S. Supreme Court decision on the EPA's Clean Power Plan raises concerns about the ability of the United States to lead in the effort to combat climate change.
Delay of Clean Power Plan Stokes Worries About Paris Treaty | The New York Times
Feb 9, 2016
By a decision of 5-4, the U.S. Supreme Court put a hold on the EPA's Clean Power Plan while the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C decides its legality (case slated to be heard on June 2 of this year). All five conservative judges voted for the hold and all four liberal judges voted against it.
This is the first time the Supreme Court has ever granted a request to put a hold on an EPA regulation before it was reviewed by a lower court, which may be an indication of how the Court might rule if it ultimately ends up deciding the legality of the Clean Power Plan.
The Obama Administration released a statement on the decision entitled "Press Secretary Josh Earnest on the Supreme Court's Decision to Stay the Clean Power Plan" which states:
We disagree with the Supreme Court's decision to stay the Clean Power Plan while litigation proceeds. The Clean Power Plan is based on a strong legal and technical foundation, gives States the time and flexibility they need to develop tailored, cost-effective plans to reduce their emissions, and will deliver better air quality, improved public health, clean energy investment and jobs across the country, and major progress in our efforts to confront the risks posed by climate change. We remain confident that we will prevail on the merits. Even while the litigation proceeds, EPA has indicated it will work with states that choose to continue plan development and will prepare the tools those states will need. At the same time, the Administration will continue to take aggressive steps to make forward progress to reduce carbon emissions.
Supreme Court blocks Obama carbon emissions plan | The Hill
Obama's Clean-Power Plan Put on Hold by U.S. Supreme Court | Bloomberg News
Supreme Court Deals Blow to Obama’s Efforts to Regulate Coal Emissions | The New York Times
Dec 19, 2015
Yesterday, President Obama vetoed "S.J.Res.24 - A joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of a rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to "Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units".", legislation that would overturn the Clean Power Plan which was announced on August 3, 2015.
In his "Memorandum of Disapproval on S.J. Res. 24" Obama said:
S.J. Res. 24 is a joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5 of the United States Code of a rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) relating to "Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units." This resolution would nullify the Clean Power Plan, the first national standards to address climate-destabilizing greenhouse gas pollution from existing power plants. Accordingly, I am withholding my approval of this resolution. (The Pocket Veto Case, 279 U.S. 655 (1929)).
Climate change poses a profound threat to our future and future generations. Atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide, a primary greenhouse gas, are higher than they have been in at least 800,000 years. In 2009, EPA determined that greenhouse gas pollution endangers Americans' health and welfare by causing long-lasting changes in the climate that can have, and are already having, a range of negative effects on human health, the climate, and the environment. We are already seeing the impacts of climate change, and established science confirms that we will experience stronger storms, deeper droughts, longer wildfire seasons, and other intensified impacts as the planet warms. The Pentagon has determined that climate change poses immediate risks to our national security.
The Clean Power Plan is a tremendously important step in the fight against global climate change. It is projected to reduce carbon pollution from power plants by 32 percent from 2005 levels by 2030. It builds on progress States and the power sector are already making to move toward cleaner energy production, and gives States the time and flexibility they need to develop tailored, cost-effective plans to reduce their emissions. By nullifying the Clean Power Plan, S.J. Res. 24 not only threatens ongoing progress toward cleaner energy, but would also eliminate public health and other benefits of up to $54 billion per year by 2030, including thousands fewer premature deaths from air pollution and thousands fewer childhood asthma attacks each year.
The Clean Power Plan is essential in addressing the largest source of greenhouse gas pollution in our country. It is past time to act to mitigate climate impacts on American communities. Because the resolution would overturn the Clean Power Plan, which is critical to protecting against climate change and ensuring the health and well-being of our Nation, I cannot support it.
To leave no doubt that the resolution is being vetoed, in addition to withholding my signature, I am returning S.J. Res. 24 to the Secretary of the Senate, along with this Memorandum of Disapproval.
Today, President Obama vetoed "S.J.Res.23 - A joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of a rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to "Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New, Modified, and Reconstructed Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units".", legislation that would overturn the Clean Power Plan which was announced on August 3, 2015.
In his "Memorandum of Disapproval on S.J. Res. 23" Obama said:
S.J. Res. 23 is a joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5 of the United States Code of a rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) relating to "Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New, Modified, and Reconstructed Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units." This resolution would nullify EPA's carbon pollution standards for new, modified, and reconstructed power plants. Accordingly, I am withholding my approval of this resolution. (The Pocket Veto Case, 279 U.S. 655 (1929)).
Climate change poses a profound threat to our future and future generations. Atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide, a primary greenhouse gas, are higher than they have been in at least 800,000 years. In 2009, EPA determined that greenhouse gas pollution endangers Americans' health and welfare by causing long-lasting changes in the climate that can have, and are already having, a range of negative effects on human health, the climate, and the environment. We are already seeing the impacts of climate change, and established science confirms that we will experience stronger storms, deeper droughts, longer wildfire seasons, and other intensified impacts as the planet warms. The Pentagon has determined that climate change poses immediate risks to our national security.
Power plants are the largest source of greenhouse gas pollution in our country. Although we have limits on other dangerous pollutants from power plants, the carbon pollution standards and the Clean Power Plan ensure that we will finally have national standards to reduce the amount of carbon pollution that our power plants can emit.
The carbon pollution standards will ensure that, when we make major investments in power generation infrastructure, we also deploy available technologies to make that infrastructure as low-emitting as possible. By blocking these standards from taking effect, S.J. Res. 23 would delay our transition to cleaner electricity generating technologies by enabling continued build-out of outdated, high-polluting infrastructure. Because it would overturn carbon pollution standards that are critical to protecting against climate change and ensuring the health and well-being of our Nation, I cannot support the resolution.
To leave no doubt that the resolution is being vetoed, in addition to withholding my signature, I am returning S.J. Res. 23 to the Secretary of the Senate, along with this Memorandum of Disapproval.
Congress passed the two resolutions in November and December of 2015 under the Congressional Review Act.
Obama vetoes GOP push to kill climate rules | The Hill
Oct 23, 2015
Lead by West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey (R), twenty-four U.S. states, along with one coal mining company, are suing the EPA for its attempt to implement the Clean Power Plan. The states include Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
Two dozen states sue Obama over coal plant emissions rule | The Hill
Aug 4, 2015
Twelve U.S. states are suing the EPA in response to the EPA's announcement of its final Clean Power Plan.
12 states sue the EPA over proposed power plant regulations | Los Angeles Times
EPA Coal Plant Emissions Limits Challenged by 12 States | Bloomberg News
Aug 3, 2015
President Obama and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Gina McCarthy released the final Clean Power Plan to reduce carbon emissions from power plants. The Clean Power Plan, the first-ever plan to limit carbon emissions, will reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 32 percent from 2005 levels by the year 2030.
Here are the key features:
- Provides Flexibility to States to Choose How to Meet Carbon Standards
- More Time for States Paired With Strong Incentives for Early Deployment of Clean Energy
- Creates Jobs and Saves Money for Families and Businesses
- Rewards States for Early Investment in Clean Energy, Focusing on Low-Income Communities
- Ensures Grid Reliability
- Continues U.S. Leadership on Climate Change
- Sets State Targets in a Way That Is Fair and Is Directly Responsive to Input from States, Utilities, and Stakeholders
- Maintains Energy Efficiency as Key Compliance Tool
- Requires States to Engage with Vulnerable Populations
- Includes a Proposed Federal Implementation Plan
Source:
(August 3, 2015). "Fact Sheet: President Obama to Announce Historic Carbon Pollution Standards for Power Plants". The White House. Retrieved 2015-08-03.
Watch President Obama announce the Clean Power Plan and discuss his plan to address climate change here.
Get more information and watch a short video that gives an overview of the Clean Power Plan here.
Read about the "Myths and Facts" of the Clean Power Plan on The White House Blog here.
White House Plan Calls for Even Greater Greenhouse Gas Reductions | U.S. News & World Report
Jun 29, 2015
In the case of Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency, by a vote of 5-4, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the EPA violated the Clean Air Act because it did not conduct a cost-benefit analysis prior to setting limits on emissions of mercury and other toxic substances from power plants. Judges Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia, Alito, and Thomas ruled for, and Judges Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsburg, and Breyer ruled against.
This decision does not invalidate the EPA's rule and industries must still comply, but it does mean the EPA must review and rewrite the rule taking costs to the affected industries into consideration.
The EPA argued they did in fact take costs into consideration after writing the regulations, and their cost analysis showed that overall cost savings were greater than the costs to industry to comply with the regulations. The industries who filed the lawsuit claimed otherwise, saying that industry costs were much greater than overall benefits.
Read the 47-page Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency "Opinion of the Court" here.
Source:
Liptak, Adam; Davenport, Coral. (June 29, 2015). "Supreme Court Blocks Obama’s Limits on Power Plants". The New York Times. Retrieved 2015-06-30.
Jun 2, 2014
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy announced a Clean Power Plan Proposed Rule which cuts carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants by 30 percent (compared to 2005 levels) by the year 2030.
Everything you need to know about the EPA’s proposed rule on coal plants | The Washington Post
Mar 27, 2012
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced a new proposed rule which limits carbon dioxide emissions from new power plants to 1,000 pounds per megawatt-hour. The proposed rule does not include existing power plants.
For New Generation of Power Plants, a New Emission Rule From the E.P.A. | The New York Times
More: