• About
    • Which Energy Mix is this?
  • Climate News Network Archive
  • Contact
The climate news that makes a difference.
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
  • Canada
  • UK & Europe
  • Fossil Fuels
  • Ending Emissions
  • Community Climate Finance
  • Clean Electricity Grid
  • Cities & Communities
  FEATURED
BP Predicts Faster Oil and Gas Decline as Clean Energy Spending Hits $1.1T in 2022 January 31, 2023
Canada Needs Oil and Gas Emissions Cap to Hit 2030 Goal: NZAB January 31, 2023
Ecuador’s Amazon Drilling Plan Shows Need for Fossil Non-Proliferation Treaty January 31, 2023
Rainforest Carbon Credits from World’s Biggest Provider are ‘Largely Worthless’, Investigation Finds January 31, 2023
Danske Bank Quits New Fossil Fuel Financing January 23, 2023
Next
Prev

‘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.

  • Concise headlines. Original content. Timely news and views from a select group of opinion leaders. Special extras.
  • Everything you need, nothing you don’t.
  • The Weekender: The climate news you need.
New!
Subscribe

“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

Mike Mozart/Flickr
Ending Emissions

BP Predicts Faster Oil and Gas Decline as Clean Energy Spending Hits $1.1T in 2022

February 4, 2023
331
Gina Dittmer/PublicDomainPictures
Canada

Canada Needs Oil and Gas Emissions Cap to Hit 2030 Goal: NZAB

January 31, 2023
196
CONFENIAE
Ending Emissions

Ecuador’s Amazon Drilling Plan Shows Need for Fossil Non-Proliferation Treaty

January 31, 2023
61

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

Mike Mozart/Flickr

BP Predicts Faster Oil and Gas Decline as Clean Energy Spending Hits $1.1T in 2022

February 4, 2023
331
openthegovernment.org

BREAKING: U.S. Senate Passes Historic $369B Climate Package

August 8, 2022
541
Sam Balto/YouTube

Elementary School’s Bike Bus Brings ‘Sheer Joy’ to Portland Neighbourhood

February 5, 2023
262
Lucio Santos/flickr

Canadian Banks Increased Fossil Investment in 2021, Report Card Shows

November 27, 2022
116

Recent Posts

Gina Dittmer/PublicDomainPictures

Canada Needs Oil and Gas Emissions Cap to Hit 2030 Goal: NZAB

January 31, 2023
196
CONFENIAE

Ecuador’s Amazon Drilling Plan Shows Need for Fossil Non-Proliferation Treaty

January 31, 2023
61
Ken Teegardin www.SeniorLiving.Org/flickr

Virtual Power Plants Hit an ‘Inflection Point’

January 31, 2023
125
/snappy goat

Rainforest Carbon Credits from World’s Biggest Provider are ‘Largely Worthless’, Investigation Finds

January 31, 2023
94
Victorgrigas/wikimedia commons

World Bank Climate Reforms Too ‘Timid and Slow,’ Critics Warn

January 31, 2023
42
Doc Searls/Twitter

Guilbeault Could Intervene on Ontario Greenbelt Development

January 31, 2023
132
Next Post
AKlassieren/wikimedia commons

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

The Energy Mix - The climate news you need

Copyright 2023 © Energy Mix Productions Inc. All rights reserved.

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

Proudly partnering with…

scf_withtagline
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}