• About
    • Which Energy Mix is this?
  • Climate News Network Archive
  • Contact
Celebrating our 1,000th edition. The climate news you need
No Result
View All Result
The Energy Mix
  • Canada
  • UK & Europe
  • Fossil Fuels
  • Ending Emissions
  • Community Climate Finance
  • Clean Electricity Grid
  • Cities & Communities
SUBSCRIBE
DONATE
  • Canada
  • UK & Europe
  • Fossil Fuels
  • Ending Emissions
  • Community Climate Finance
  • Clean Electricity Grid
  • Cities & Communities
SUBSCRIBE
DONATE
No Result
View All Result
The Energy Mix
No Result
View All Result
  FEATURED
BREAKING: UN Nature Summit, the ‘Paris Conference for Biodiversity’, Moves to Montreal in December June 19, 2022
‘LET’S SUE BIG OIL’: Legal Team Launches Class Action Campaign for B.C. Municipalities June 17, 2022
‘It Could Have Been Any of Us’, Colleague Says, After Brazil Confirms Murders of Bruno Pereira, Dom Phillips June 17, 2022
Infrastructure Gap a ‘Life and Death’ Matter as Northern Canada Warms June 17, 2022
Ban Fossil Fuel Ads Like Tobacco Promos, Doctors Urge Ottawa June 10, 2022
Next
Prev
Home Fossil Fuels Coal

‘Fuzzy Math’ Could Undercut Trump’s Clean Power Plan Rollback

August 19, 2018
Reading time: 3 minutes

Michael Vadon/Flickr

Michael Vadon/Flickr

 

The Trump White House is about to unveil a replacement for President Barack Obama’s Clean Power Plan that would devolve regulatory decisions to state governments and release dramatically more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. But at least one report says the administration’s “fuzzy math” could be the new plan’s undoing.

The new strategy, which Trump could release as early as Tuesday on a visit to West Virginia, would “empower states to establish emission standards for coal-fired power plants rather than speeding their retirement—a major overhaul of the Obama administration’s signature climate policy,” the Washington Post reports.

“The Environmental Protection Agency’s own impact analysis, which runs nearly 300 pages, projects that the proposal would make only slight cuts to overall emissions of pollutants—including carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides—over the next decade. The Obama rule, by contrast, dwarfs those cuts by a factor of more than 12.”

The administration says the proposal would cut carbon emissions 0.75 to 1.5% from 2005 levels by 2030, the equivalent of taking 2.7 to 5.3 million cars off the road, the Post states. “By comparison, the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan would have reduced carbon dioxide emissions by about 19% during that same time frame. That is equivalent to taking 75 million cars out of circulation and preventing more than 365 million tonnes of carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere.”

Smog-producing sulphur dioxide and oxides of nitrogen would be reduced by 1.0 to 2.0%, compared to 24 and 22%, respectively, under the Obama plan.

“These numbers tell the story, that they really remain committed not to do anything to address greenhouse gas emissions,” said Joseph Goffman, a CPP architect and former associate assistant administrator for climate in the EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation, now executive director of the Environmental Law Program at Harvard Law School. “They show not merely indifference to climate change but, really, opposition to doing anything about climate change.”

National Rural Electric Cooperative Association CEO Jim Matheson said the revision will “provide electric co-ops the certainty and flexibility they need to meet their consumer-members’ energy needs.” Co-op members generate 41% of their electricity from coal, and the CPP “would have resulted in stranded assets and stranded debt, significantly increasing electricity costs for many consumers,” he added.

The EPA estimates the plan could affect 300 operating power plants, with “enormous implications for dozens of aging coal-fired power plants across the country,” the Post writes. It would give companies “an incentive to keep coal plants in operation rather than replacing them with cleaner natural gas or renewable energy projects.”

But Politico reports the Trump team built the new plan on cost-benefit calculations that may not survive the court challenges it will inevitably face.

The administration proposal “is expected to downplay the money that people and businesses would save from using less electricity, a key feature of the Obama-era greenhouse rule for power plants,” the Washington Beltway publication states. “People tracking the issue also expect that the agency will count only a fraction of the improvements in public health from reduced smog and soot pollution, and won’t consider any benefits from slowing climate change outside the U.S.”

The Obama administration “had estimated that benefits from its 2015 rule would outstrip costs—$26 billion to $45 billion—by 2030,” Politico notes. “Supporters of the Obama version say those net benefits could be even greater now, because states are on track to meet the climate goals and the costs of clean energy have continued to plummet. And they warn that repealing the regulation could keep older, more expensive coal-fired power plants in operation, adding to consumers’ costs.”

“They are cooking the books on technical analysis to try to justify preconceived conclusions that these regulations are bad,” said David Doniger, senior strategic director of the Natural Resources Defense Council climate program.

“Emissions are going to go up, and I don’t mean from where they would have been under the Clean Power Plan, but relative to the trends now,” said Clean Air Task Force Advocacy Director Conrad Schneider. “This is to put the thumb on the scales and bring coal back.”

Environmental lawyer Sean Donahue predicted a court would be “very skeptical” of any appearance the EPA was trying to dodge its regulatory responsibility for greenhouse gases, though the outcome of any court challenge would depend on the details of this week’s power plant proposal.

“If it were one or two technical judgments where there’s a difference between this administration and the last one, or this administration and prior consistent practice, that would be one thing,” he told Politico. “But it’s many, many things, all pointing the same way, all pointing toward rolling back greenhouse gas mitigation efforts.”



in Coal, Energy Politics, Health & Safety, Legal & Regulatory, United States

The latest climate news and analysis, direct to your inbox

Subscribe

Related Posts

Jason Woodhead/Flickr
Pipelines / Rail Transport

Trans Mountain Pipeline On Track to Lose $600 Million, Parliamentary Budget Officer Finds

June 24, 2022
312
Ben_Kerckx/Pixabay
Petrochemicals & Plastics

Plastics Cited as ‘Fossil Industry’s Plan B’ as Guilbeault Announces Partial Ban

June 24, 2022
193
Erik Whalen/wikimedia commons
Severe Storms & Flooding

Yellowstone Park Reopens, But Flood Recovery Could Take Years, Cost Billions

June 24, 2022
73

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

I agree to the Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy.

Trending Stories

The federal government's Cliff Street Power Plant is at the centre of Ottawa's plans to reduce natural gas demand. Photo: PWGSC

EXCLUSIVE: Ontario Regulator Refuses New Pipeline, Tells Enbridge to Plan for Lower Gas Demand

May 30, 2022
5.1k
Jason Woodhead/Flickr

Trans Mountain Pipeline On Track to Lose $600 Million, Parliamentary Budget Officer Finds

June 24, 2022
312
Ben_Kerckx/Pixabay

Plastics Cited as ‘Fossil Industry’s Plan B’ as Guilbeault Announces Partial Ban

June 24, 2022
193
Bruce Reeve/Flickr

Opinion: Ontario’s New ‘Carbon Tax’ Looks Like the One Doug Ford Fought

June 7, 2022
1.6k
zephylwer0/pixabay

North American Steel, Aluminium Giants Lumber Toward Green Transition

June 24, 2022
164
Michael and Diane Weidner/Unsplash

Scientists, Politicians Debate Ethics of ‘Climate Tinkering’

June 7, 2022
72

Recent Posts

Erik Whalen/wikimedia commons

Yellowstone Park Reopens, But Flood Recovery Could Take Years, Cost Billions

June 24, 2022
73
TAFE SA TONSLEY/Flickr

Clean Energy Investment to Exceed $1.4T This Year, Still Falls Short of Climate Goals: IEA

June 24, 2022
93
Nemaska Lithium/Facebook

Critical Minerals, Hydrogen Lead Ottawa’s Low-Carbon Industry Strategy

June 24, 2022
79
Cjp24/Wikimedia Commons

UK Green Shift Won’t Repeat Job Destruction of Deindustrialization, Report Finds

June 24, 2022
36
/PxFul

Canadian Farmers Offer Ottawa a Roadmap to Cut Agriculture Emissions

June 24, 2022
92
Pavlofox/Pixabay

Millions Face Famine as Climate Disasters, Ukraine War Slash Food Supplies

June 24, 2022
48
Next Post
AKlassieren/wikimedia commons

Ontario Solar-Maker Aims for 30% Higher Output, Plans Ontario and U.S. Production Lines

The Energy Mix

Copyright 2022 © Smarter Shift Inc. and Energy Mix Productions Inc. All rights reserved.

Navigate Site

  • About
  • Contact
  • Privacy Policy and Copyright
  • Cookie Policy

Follow Us

No Result
View All Result
  • Canada
  • UK & Europe
  • Fossil Fuels
  • Ending Emissions
  • Community Climate Finance
  • Clean Electricity Grid
  • Cities & Communities

Copyright 2022 © Smarter Shift Inc. and Energy Mix Productions Inc. All rights reserved.

Manage Cookie Consent
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behaviour or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes. The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Manage options Manage services Manage vendors Read more about these purposes
View preferences
{title} {title} {title}