EPA to kill Obama-era clean power plan

EPA to kill Obama-era clean power plan

The Clean Power Plan required states to devise a way to cut planet-warming emissions by 32% below 2005 levels by 2030.

That's a strategy environmentalists say is nearly certain to fall short of what's needed.

"As much as we want to see progress made with clean air and clean water, with an understanding that we can also grow jobs, we have to do so within the framework of what Congress has passed", Pruitt said. The agency may issue a separate rule, asking for comments on what could replace the CPP.

A leaked draft of the repeal proposal asserts that the country would save $33 billion by not complying with the regulation and rejects the health benefits the Obama administration had calculated from the original rule, writes the New York Times in a detailed analysis of the move. The utilities are the largest emitters of greenhouse gases blamed by scientists for climate change.

Previously, the EPA had estimated that by 2030 the Clean Power Plan would prevent 90,000 asthma attacks and up to 3,600 premature deaths a year. "There's only so many opportunities within a big spinning machine like that". Pruitt sued the EPA 13 other times in his capacity as Oklahoma's attorney general for the agency's efforts to regulate mercury, smog and other forms of pollution.

The EPA has not decided whether it will promulgate a new rule at all.

Almost 200 countries have committed to combat global warming by reducing carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming.

More news: Don't Expect Any New Windows Phone Hardware, Features
More news: Indian Supreme Court bans sale of firecrackers on Diwali
More news: Google Pixel 2 vs Samsung Galaxy S8: the weigh

"Rolling back the Clean Power Plan has been part of Pruitt's agenda since well before he was approved to run the EPA", said executive director May Boeve. They would also have the option of trading emissions rate credits with other states.

In a competitive market, any improvement in emissions produced for each unit of energy could be overwhelmed by an increase in electrical output. "The past administration was using every bit of power and authority to use the EPA to pick winners and losers and how we generate electricity in this country".

He continued: "That rule really was about picking winners and losers".

A plant-specific approach doesn't have to mean modest impact. "You look at things like switching to natural gas or installing carbon capture and storage". The rule was a key component of the nation's broader emissions-reduction pledge under the Paris climate accord, which President Trump exited this summer. They just would cost more.

The proposal will start to implement one of Trump's signature campaign promises and a top request by the fossil fuel industry and congressional Republicans to undo the rule.

-With assistance from Mark Chediak. "We look forward to working with the administration to devise an alternative plan for decarbonizing the USA economy".