Clean Power Plan

Last updated

The Navajo Generating Station, a coal-fired power plant outside Page, Arizona Navajo generating station Page 2.jpg
The Navajo Generating Station, a coal-fired power plant outside Page, Arizona

The Clean Power Plan was an Obama administration policy aimed at combating climate change that was first proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in June 2014. [1] The final version of the plan was unveiled by President Barack Obama on August 3, 2015. [2] Each state was assigned a target for reducing carbon emissions within its borders, which could be accomplished how the states saw fit, but with the possibility of the EPA stepping in if a state refused to submit a plan. [3] If every state met its target, the plan was projected to reduce carbon emissions from electricity generation by 32 percent relative to 2005 levels by 2030, and would have reduced other harmful air pollution as well. [4]

Contents

In March 2017, President Donald Trump signed an executive order mandating that the EPA review the plan. [5] [6] [7] In June 2017, he withdrew the U.S. from the Paris Climate Agreement, and on October 9, Trump-appointed EPA administrator Scott Pruitt announced the formal process to repeal the Clean Power Plan would begin on October 10, 2017. [8]

In May 2019, EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler announced plans to change the way the EPA calculates health risks of air pollution, saying the change was intended to rectify inconsistencies in the current cost-benefit analyses used by the agency. This became the Affordable Clean Energy rule. [9] On June 19, 2019, the EPA issued the final Affordable Clean Energy rule (ACE), which replaced the Clean Power Plan. On January 19, 2021, the last full day of the Trump administration, the D.C. Circuit vacated the Affordable Clean Energy rule and remanded to the EPA for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. The court characterized the ACE as a "fundamental misconstruction" of environmental laws. The ruling did not reinstate the Clean Power Plan; however, it did create the opportunity for the Biden administration to improve and clarify the rules. [10] [11]

In 2022, in the case West Virginia v. EPA , the U.S. Supreme Court curbed the EPA's ability to broadly regulate carbon emissions from existing power plants as was done in the Clean Power Plan. The Clean Power Plan was no longer in place, but if it had been, the ruling would have struck it down. [12]

In 2024, the Biden Administration issued a suite of rules called the Greenhouse Gas Standards and Guidelines for Fossil Fuel-Fired Power Plants, sometimes called the "Clean Power Plan 2.0", to replace the Clean Power Plan and ACE. [13]

Aims

The final version of the plan aimed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from electrical power generation by 32 percent by 2030 relative to 2005 levels. [4] The plan focused on reducing emissions from coal-burning power plants and increasing the use of renewable energy and promoting energy conservation. [14] White House officials also hoped the plan would help persuade other countries that emit large amounts of carbon dioxide to officially pledge to reduce their emissions at the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference. [15]

Although the plan did not go into effect, its emissions reduction goal was met 11 years early in 2019 due to increasing energy efficiency, construction of wind and solar power, and changes in energy market prices that resulted in shifting from coal to natural gas. [16] [17]

Requirements

The plan would have required each state to meet specific standards with respect to reduction of carbon dioxide emissions from power plants and to submit emissions reductions plans by September 2016. [18] States could coordinate with other states to develop multi-state plans. [19] The EPA divided the country into three regions based on connected regional electricity grids to determine a state's goal. [20]

States were not told the means they had to use to meet the target, but if a state had not submitted a plan by the deadline, the EPA could have imposed its own plan on that state. [21] States could implement their plans by focusing on three building blocks: increasing the generation efficiency of existing fossil fuel plants, substituting natural gas generation for coal-powered generation, and substituting generation renewable sources for fossil fuel-powered generation. [19]

Benefits

The EPA estimated the Clean Power Plan would have reduced the pollutants that contribute to smog and soot by 25 percent, leading to 140,000 to 150,000 fewer asthma attacks among children and 2,700 to 6,600 fewer premature deaths. Net climate and health benefits were estimated between $25 billion and $45 billion per year beginning in 2030. [22] The average American family would have saved an estimated $85 per year in energy bills in 2030, with a total savings for consumers projected at $155 billion from 2020 to 2030. Enough energy would have been conserved to power 30 million homes and 30 percent more renewable energy would have been generated annually by 2030, with hundreds of thousands of jobs created. [23] [24]

Reduced CO2 emissions

Wind power plant, Jeanne Menjoulet, May 13, 2017 Old nuclear power plant & new wind turbine.jpg
Wind power plant, Jeanne Menjoulet, May 13, 2017

According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), coal in 2015 in the United States produced 1,364,000,000 metric tons of CO2. This amounted to 71% of CO2 emissions from the electric power sector. [25] By switching this coal generation to a cleaner source such as wind power, CO2 emissions could be significantly reduced. According to the League of Conservation Voters, in 2015, the Clean Power Plan "established the first national limits on carbon pollution from existing power plants—our nation's single largest source of the pollution fueling climate change" and was "the biggest step" the United States had "ever taken to address climate change." [26]

The Clean Power Plan was one of the first major initiatives in the world to curb internal greenhouse gas emissions. The Paris Agreement was agreed upon in October 2016 and entered into force in November 2016. It aims to keep global temperature rise this century "well below" 2 degrees Celsius and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius. [27] In order to enact the plan, 194 UNFCCC member nations have signed the treaty, 172 of which have ratified it. [27]

The poorest, most underdeveloped nations emit the lowest levels of carbon dioxide and greenhouse gasses. According to the World Bank, greenhouse gas emissions from large nations such as the U.S. and China disproportionately affect developing nations that don't have the infrastructure to combat climate change-induced drought, famine, and other natural and anthropogenic disasters. [28]

Economic environmental justice for households

The economic impact of the Clean Power Plan (CPP), not including the impact on employment, can be measured by many variables including its impact on electricity prices and health expenditures. In four major studies conducted on the economic impact of the CPP, findings varied widely due to the assumptions made and the variables analyzed. Ultimately, the effect of the CPP on households is most influenced by how states decide to meet their emissions goals, allocate the revenue generated by the carbon tax, and collaborate with other states. [29] [30]

Data on the economic impact of the Clean Power Plan on electricity prices relies heavily on four studies conducted separately by Synapse Energy Economics, M.J. Bradley & Associates, NERA Economic Consulting, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Synapse Energy Economics relied on assumptions from a 2012 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) study on future potential of energy and reported findings indicating that the CPP will decrease the cost of electricity. M.J. Bradley & Associates rely on data from National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and reported generally optimistic findings, with large decreases in costs due to the CPP. NERA Economic Consulting, funded by coal lobbyists, [31] relied on U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) data with pessimistic assumptions, resulting in pessimistic findings stating that some states may even face double-digit price increases. [32] The EPA drew from the NREL for data and made middle-ground assumptions, ultimately reporting findings that are similarly "middle-ground" compared with other studies. The ability to measure and determine the impact on at-risk communities is confounded by these varying conclusions. [33]

Differences between states aside, three key at-risk groups are lower-income communities, higher-income communities, and coal miner communities. Lower-income households may disproportionately experience increases in expenditures due to a large share of their consumption falling into the energy-intensive category, including products and services like electricity, heating, and gasoline. However, lower-income communities are also likely to benefit from increased air quality, and therefore decreased health care expenditures. In order to combat any negative impact of the CPP, states may choose to allocate roughly 10% of their carbon pricing revenue to protect low-income communities. Higher-income communities may be disproportionately affected by the CPP because of decreased income levels, due to greater dependence on capital income, rather than wages. Coal miners, making up 0.057% of the total U.S. employment, may be disproportionately affected by the CPP due to potential layoffs in the coal industry. In contrast, coal miners disproportionately benefit from increased clean air and decreased health expenditures. Just one to five percent of the revenue generated from a moderate carbon price would offset any detriment to coal miner communities. [30]

Health impact

According to a 2017 analysis of the Energy Innovation's Energy Policy Simulator, a repeal of the Clean Power Plan would lead to an increase in carbon dioxide emissions of more than 500 million metric tons by 2030, and by 2050, that figure would rise to more than 1,200 million metric tons. [34]

Furthermore, the EPA's proximity analysis concludes that a higher percentage of minority and low-income communities live near power plants when compared to the national averages, increasing risk of disease and death due to toxic particulate matter emissions and air pollution. [35]

Drought, dried out, middle of forest, Bruce Dupree, October 17, 2016 Drought or dried out.jpg
Drought, dried out, middle of forest, Bruce Dupree, October 17, 2016

The EPA has determined that greenhouse gas pollution causes global temperature warming, leading to harmful changes to the environment and human health globally such as increased drought and increased famine due to decrease in water supply and agricultural production. According to the EPA fact sheet on the Clean Power Plan, climate change is responsible for everything from stronger storms to longer droughts and increased insurance premiums, food prices and allergy seasons. [29] The populations most vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change include children, older adults, people with heart or lung disease and people living in poverty. [29] The repeal of the Clean Power Plan will increase greenhouse gas emissions, expediting the damaging environmental changes due to climate change that disproportionately affect subaltern populations around the globe. [34]

Employment and community engagement impact

As aforementioned, a major part of the Clean Power Plan's mission is to regulate and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from industry. [29] [36] Opponents of the Clean Power Plan have stated that the attempt in reducing these emissions is also going to be reducing the number of jobs in the United States because of the shrinkage in the industry sector. More specifically, [36] there will be a 19% reduction in the iron and steel production, 21% reduction in cement production, and 11% in refining production. On the other hand, those who argue favorably for the Clean Power Plan have addressed the employment concerns of critics of the Clean Power Plan. While jobs will be decreasing in the industrial sector, there has also been an increase nationwide [37] in the solar sector, wind sector, and energy efficient sector.

While some[ who? ] are skeptical of the Clean Power Plan because of its job loss in the industrial sector, the EPA has made clear that in order for the Clean Energy Plan to be effective community engagement [29] is essential, particularly low income, minority and tribal communities. To ensure opportunities in communities, the EPA is requiring all states demonstrate how they are actively engaging with communities. The EPA has created a Clean Energy Incentive Plan [29] that will reward communities who invest in wind and solar generations; the premise is to increase demand for energy efficient programs in low-income communities. In addition to incentivizing public engagement, they will also be testing air quality evaluations and providing demographic information in order to gauge the impact of air pollution on communities who are located near power plants. [29]

2015 announcement

President Obama announced the plan in a speech given at the White House on August 3, 2015. In his announcement, Obama stated that the plan includes the first standards on carbon dioxide emissions from power plants ever proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency. [38] He also called the plan "the single most important step that America has ever made in the fight against global climate change." [38]

Obama called his plan "a moral obligation" and made reference to the encyclical Laudato si' by Pope Francis. [39]

The policy has been described as "[Obama's] most ambitious climate policy to date." [21] In response to Obama's 2015 announcement, hundreds of businesses voiced support for the plan, including eBay, Nestlé, and General Mills. [40] To show support for the Clean Power Plan, 360 other companies and investors sent letters to their governors. The companies and investors signing the letter represent all 50 states. [41] In 2016, 2/3 of electric utilities supported the plan. [42]

The 460-page rule (RIN 2060–AR33) titled "Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units" was published in the Federal Register on October 23, 2015. [43]

Congressional challenge

In October 2015, Republican Senator Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia introduced Senate Joint Resolution 24 (S. J. Res. 24), a “Resolution of Disapproval” under the Congressional Review Act, which would have permanently blocked the Clean Power Plan and prohibited the EPA from developing “substantially similar” standards. S. J. Res. 24 was approved by the Senate on November 17 by a vote of 52–46 and by the House on December 1 by a vote of 242–180. Obama vetoed the resolution on December 18. According to the League of Conservation Voters, the resolution was "an extreme measure...threatening our health and our future." [26] [44] [45] [46] The votes on the resolution were considered key votes by the League and Americans for Prosperity (AFP) Congressional scorecards. AFP said the Clean Power Plan would have a "devastating effect on the economy" and that the resolution would send a "clear signal to the Paris climate negotiators that President Obama's expansive green energy agenda does not have support on Capitol Hill." [47]

Court challenge

In the June 18, 2014, proposed rule, EPA argued that because the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendment is ambiguous, EPA's interpretation is entitled to judicial deference. [48] EPA found the statute to be ambiguous because the language in the United States Code is from a May 23, 1990, House amendment that conflicts with a never codified April 3 Senate conforming amendment. [49]

After the U.S. Supreme Court in King v. Burwell upheld the Affordable Care Act on June 25, 2015, however, the EPA adopted a more aggressive statutory interpretation. [48] In the final rule announced on August 3, the EPA argued that the Senate's language unambiguously allows it to regulate, while the House language in the U.S. Code should be ignored because it is unreasonable under the Clean Air Act's "comprehensive scheme". [48]

Opponents immediately declared the Plan was illegal, attempting to sue before the agency finalized the rule. [50] Only ten days after the EPA announced the final rule, twenty-seven states petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for an emergency stay. [48] Peabody Energy hired Laurence Tribe, President Obama's mentor at Harvard Law School, to author a brief which was later acclaimed on the Senate floor. [51] Tribe would go on to testify before the House Energy and Commerce Committee that the EPA's energy policy was "burning the Constitution." [52]

Challengers argue that EPA overstepped its legal authority in issuing the CPP, in regards to the power plants covered by the plan, and that the scope of the "building blocks" for action goes beyond standards applied to specific electric generating units, as called for by the Clean Air Act. [53] Eighteen states (California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia and Washington) have joined the litigation in support of the EPA's plan. [54]

Enforcement halt by Supreme Court

On February 9, 2016, the United States Supreme Court ordered the EPA to halt enforcement of the plan until a lower court rules in the lawsuit against the plan. [55] [ clarification needed ] The 5–4 vote was the first time the Supreme Court had ever stayed a regulation before a judgment by the lower Court of Appeals. [56]

As of July 2016, several states – including Republican-held ones such as Wyoming, South Carolina, Virginia, Arizona, Idaho, and New Jersey – are moving forward to meet the Plan's requirements although sometimes indirectly, regardless of open opposition. [57]

D.C. Circuit Court hears argument

On September 27, 2016, the case against the CPP was heard in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The chief judge of the court, Merrick B. Garland, recused himself, as he was also President Obama's US Supreme Court nominee. [58]

The argument has sparked debate about both the constitutionality and the political effects of the Clean Power Plan. The New York Times Editorial Board published an editorial arguing that the D.C. Circuit should uphold the plan. [59]

In August 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit granted the EPA an additional 60 days to review the CPP and submit their position to the court, before continuing the process to settle the case about the legality of the CPP. [7]

Proposed actions under President Trump

President Donald Trump's proposed 2018 United States federal budget defunded the Clean Power Plan. [60] On March 28, 2017, President Trump signed an executive order directing EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt to review the Clean Power Plan. [61] EPA will need to go through the formal rulemaking process to change the existing rule, [62] and in 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the case Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency that EPA regulation of carbon dioxide is actually required by the Clean Air Act, which is still in effect. Trump explained this decision calling the Clean Power Plan a "job-killing regulation" which some see as false, saying "the potential for job growth in the clean energy sector dwarfs any potential job growth in the fossil fuel economy". [63]

Opposition argues that with the repeal of the Clean Power Plan, the United States will not be able to meet the greenhouse gas emission standards agreed to under the Paris Agreement, and in turn, will have to withdraw from the agreement. Without it, the United States is projected to fall over 20% short of its pledge. [64] Because the Clean Power Plan was a significant part of how the United States intended to meet the emission targets it set for the Paris Agreement, this action may discourage other countries from upholding their own commitments. [65] Janet McCabe, an Obama Administration EPA department head, stated that the decision completely disregards the impacts of climate and the cost and benefits associated with the started programs. According to her it will lead to several more years of uncertainty and potentially lost opportunity as well as a worsening public image of the United States internationally. However she is hopeful that the decision's impact on the industry's direction toward a cleaner energy system won't be severe as several states already meet the 2022 target carbon dioxide emissions established in the Clean Power Plan. [66]

On June 1, 2017, Donald Trump announced United States withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, but a number of U.S. states formed the United States Climate Alliance to maintain within state borders the objectives of the Clean Power Plan separately from the federal government.

Attempted replacement with Affordable Clean Energy rule

On October 4, 2017, an EPA document obtained by Reuters revealed that the EPA was planning to repeal the Clean Power Plan. [67] A list of potential alternatives to the Clean Power Plan following public discussion were leaked to Bloomberg News on October 6. [68] Likewise, The Washington Post and CNN reported that the EPA would repeal the plan and limit the alternatives to advice for local utilities on October 10. [69] [70] [71] Then-EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt signed a proposed rule to repeal the Clean Power Plan on that day. [72] New York's and Massachusetts’ attorneys general planned to sue the EPA over the repeal. [73] The EPA held a hearing, titled, "Proposal to Repeal the Clean Power Plan", on Nov. 28–29, 2017 in Charleston, West Virginia. [74] The hearing was live-streamed from the West Virginia capitol building, where it was held.

In May 2019, Administrator Andrew Wheeler announced plans to change the way the EPA calculates health risks of air pollution, resulting in the reporting of far fewer health-related deaths and making it easier to roll back the Clean Power Plan. The Trump administration has argued that the Obama administration over-estimated the health risks for various environmental regulations, to the detriment of industry. Administrator Wheeler defended the change as a way to rectify inconsistencies in the current cost-benefit analyses used by the agency. The new plan will be known as the Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule. The planned changes were hailed by industry representatives. [9]

Environmentalists are fighting the administration's power plant regulation rollbacks. In April 2020, several environmental groups and twenty-two states filed their first legal briefs in an attempt to fight the administration's attempt to loosen emission standards. Environmentalists are concerned that the new ACE standards are so limited in the pollution controls it requires power producers to install that it could hamstring future administrations from addressing climate-altering pollution. [75]

On January 19, 2021, the federal D.C. Circuit ruled the Affordable Clean Energy rule violated the Clean Air Act, leaving the administration of incoming President Joe Biden to make a rule from scratch. [76]

Supreme Court challenge

Several states and energy companies petitioned to the Supreme Court on the basis of the D.C. Circuit ruling to challenge fundamental aspects of the power granted by Congress to the EPA to regulate emissions. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to four petitions in October 2021, consolidated under West Virginia v. EPA , heard during the 2021-22 term. [77] On June 30, 2022, in a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled against the EPA, holding that "Congress did not grant EPA...the authority to devise emissions caps based on the generation shifting approach the Agency took in the Clean Power Plan" and that "Under this body of law, known as the major questions doctrine, given both separation of powers principles and a practical understanding of legislative intent, the agency must point to 'clear congressional authorization' for the authority it claims." [78]

See also

Related Research Articles

Southern Company is an American gas and electric utility holding company based in the Southern United States. It is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, with executive offices located in Birmingham, Alabama. As of 2021 it is the second largest utility company in the U.S. in terms of customer base. Through its subsidiaries it serves 9 million gas and electric utility customers in 6 states. Southern Company's regulated regional electric utilities serve a 120,000-square-mile (310,000 km2) territory with 27,000 miles (43,000 km) of distribution lines.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fossil fuel power station</span> Facility that burns fossil fuels to produce electricity

A fossil fuel power station is a thermal power station which burns a fossil fuel, such as coal, oil, or natural gas, to produce electricity. Fossil fuel power stations have machinery to convert the heat energy of combustion into mechanical energy, which then operates an electrical generator. The prime mover may be a steam turbine, a gas turbine or, in small plants, a reciprocating gas engine. All plants use the energy extracted from the expansion of a hot gas, either steam or combustion gases. Although different energy conversion methods exist, all thermal power station conversion methods have their efficiency limited by the Carnot efficiency and therefore produce waste heat.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Coal pollution mitigation</span>

Coal pollution mitigation, sometimes labeled as clean coal, is a series of systems and technologies that seek to mitigate health and environmental impact of burning coal for energy. Burning coal releases harmful substances that contribute to air pollution, acid rain, and greenhouse gas emissions. Mitigation includes precombustion approaches, such as cleaning coal, and post combustion approaches, include flue-gas desulfurization, selective catalytic reduction, electrostatic precipitators, and fly ash reduction. These measures aim to reduce coal's impact on human health and the environment.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative</span> American carbon emission trading program

The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI, pronounced "Reggie") is the first mandatory market-based program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by the United States. RGGI is a cooperative effort among the states of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Virginia to cap and reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from the power sector. RGGI compliance obligations apply to fossil-fueled power plants 25 megawatts (MW) and larger within the 11-state region. Pennsylvania's participation in the RGGI cooperative was ruled unconstitutional on November 1, 2023, although that decision has been appealed. North Carolina's entrance into RGGI has been blocked by the enactment of the state's fiscal year 2023–25 budget.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Capitol Power Plant</span> Fossil-fuel burning power plant in Washington, DC

The Capitol Power Plant is a fossil-fuel burning power plant which provides steam and chilled water for the United States Capitol, the Supreme Court, the Library of Congress and 19 other buildings in the Capitol Complex. Located at 25 E St SE in southeast Washington, D.C., the CPP was the only coal-burning power plant in the District of Columbia, and it now mostly uses natural gas. The plant has been serving the Capitol since 1910, and is under the administration of the Architect of the Capitol.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Greenhouse gas emissions by the United States</span> Climate changing gases from the North American country

The United States produced 5.2 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in 2020, the second largest in the world after greenhouse gas emissions by China and among the countries with the highest greenhouse gas emissions per person. In 2019 China is estimated to have emitted 27% of world GHG, followed by the United States with 11%, then India with 6.6%. In total the United States has emitted a quarter of world GHG, more than any other country. Annual emissions are over 15 tons per person and, amongst the top eight emitters, is the highest country by greenhouse gas emissions per person.

United States vehicle emission standards are set through a combination of legislative mandates enacted by Congress through Clean Air Act (CAA) amendments from 1970 onwards, and executive regulations managed nationally by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and more recently along with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). These standards cover tailpipe pollution, including carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulate emissions, and newer versions have incorporated fuel economy standards. However they lag behind European emission standards, which limit air pollution from brakes and tires.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Coal power in the United States</span>

Coal generated about 19.5% of the electricity at utility-scale facilities in the United States in 2022, down from 38.6% in 2014 and 51% in 2001. In 2021, coal supplied 9.5 quadrillion British thermal units (2,800 TWh) of primary energy to electric power plants, which made up 90% of coal's contribution to U.S. energy supply. Utilities buy more than 90% of the coal consumed in the United States. There were over 200 coal powered units across the United States in 2024. Coal plants have been closing since the 2010s due to cheaper and cleaner natural gas and renewables. Due to measures such as scrubbers air pollution from the plants kills far fewer people nowadays, but deaths in 2020 from PM25 have been estimated at 1600. Environmentalists say that political action is needed to close them faster, to also reduce greenhouse gas emissions by the United States and better limit climate change.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Environmental policy of the United States</span> Governmental action to protect the environment

The environmental policy of the United States is a federal governmental action to regulate activities that have an environmental impact in the United States. The goal of environmental policy is to protect the environment for future generations while interfering as little as possible with the efficiency of commerce or the liberty of the people and to limit inequity in who is burdened with environmental costs. As his first official act bringing in the 1970s, President Richard Nixon signed the U.S. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) into law on New Year's Day, 1970. Also in the same year, America began celebrating Earth Day, which has been called "the big bang of U.S. environmental politics, launching the country on a sweeping social learning curve about ecological management never before experienced or attempted in any other nation." NEPA established a comprehensive US national environmental policy and created the requirement to prepare an environmental impact statement for "major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the environment." Author and consultant Charles H. Eccleston has called NEPA the world's "environmental Magna Carta".

New Energy for America was a plan led by President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden beginning in 2008 to invest in renewable energy sources, reduce reliance on foreign oil, address global warming issues, and create jobs for Americans. The main objective of the New Energy for America plan was to implement clean energy sources in the United States to switch from nonrenewable resources to renewable resources. The plan led by the Obama Administration aimed to implement short-term solutions to provide immediate relief from pain at the pump, and mid- to- long-term solutions to provide a New Energy for America plan. The goals of the clean energy plan hoped to: invest in renewable technologies that will boost domestic manufacturing and increase homegrown energy, invest in training for workers of clean technologies, strengthen the middle class, and help the economy.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Clean Air Act (United States)</span> 1963 United States federal law to control air pollution

The Clean Air Act (CAA) is the United States' primary federal air quality law, intended to reduce and control air pollution nationwide. Initially enacted in 1963 and amended many times since, it is one of the United States' first and most influential modern environmental laws.

The climate change policy of the United States has major impacts on global climate change and global climate change mitigation. This is because the United States is the second largest emitter of greenhouse gasses in the world after China, and is among the countries with the highest greenhouse gas emissions per person in the world. Cumulatively, the United States has emitted over a trillion metric tons of greenhouse gases, more than any country in the world.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Energy policy of the Barack Obama administration</span> American presidential policy

The energy policy of the Obama administration was defined by an "all-of-the-above" approach which offered federal support for renewable energy deployment, increased domestic oil and gas extraction, and export of crude oil and natural gas. His presidency's first term was shaped by the failure of his signature climate legislation, the American Clean Energy and Security Act, to pass, and then climate and energy disasters including the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010 and then Hurricane Sandy, which took place during the 2012 election. In his second term, Obama lifted the ban on crude oil exports and approved liquified natural gas exports; his planned regulatory approach to reducing greenhouse pollution in the electricity sector, the Clean Power Plan, was blocked by the U.S. Supreme Court.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Energy Tax Prevention Act</span> Proposed US legislation

Energy Tax Prevention Act, also known as H.R. 910, was a 2011 bill in the United States House of Representatives to prohibit the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from regulating greenhouse gases to address climate change. On April 7, 2011, the bill passed the House by a vote of 255 to 172. The bill died in January 2013 with the ending of the Congressional session.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Electricity Security and Affordability Act</span>

The Electricity Security and Affordability Act is a bill that would repeal a pending rule published by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on January 8, 2014. The proposed rule would establish uniform national limits on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from new electricity-generating facilities that use coal or natural gas. The rule also sets new standards of performance for those power plants, including the requirement to install carbon capture and sequestration technology.

In the United States, the war on coal is a phrase used by the coal industry and its supporters to describe what they claim was an effort by the Obama administration to impose stringent regulations on coal power in the United States and thereby make such power uneconomical. Proponents of this phrase also often identify the Environmental Protection Agency as one of the chief entities waging this putative war, although Michael Grunwald has claimed that the war on coal, although real, does not primarily happen at the national level but at the state and local level, and that the "boots on the ground" in the war are lawyers from the Sierra Club's Beyond Coal campaign. During Obama's tenure, the Obama administration denied that they were waging a war on coal, noting the possibility of upgrading older power plants with more efficient turbines, and also pointing to the possibility of carbon sequestration techniques.

The environmental policy of the Donald Trump administration represented a shift from the policy priorities and goals of the preceding Barack Obama administration. Where President Obama's environmental agenda prioritized the reduction of carbon emissions through the use of renewable energy with the goal of conserving the environment for future generations, the Trump administration policy was for the US to attain energy independence based on fossil fuel use and to rescind many environmental regulations. By the end of Trump's term, his administration had rolled back 98 environmental rules and regulations, leaving an additional 14 rollbacks still in progress. As of early 2021, the Biden administration was making a public accounting of regulatory decisions under the Trump administration that had been influenced by politics rather than science.

Fossil fuel regulations are part of the energy policy in the United States and have gained major significance with the nation's strong dependence on fossil fuel-based energy. Regulatory processes are established at the federal and state level due to the immense economic, socio-political and environmental impact of fossil fuel extraction and production. Over 80% of the United States' energy comes from fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas, and oil. The Bush administration was marked by the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which provided a monetary incentive for renewable energy adoption and addressed the issue of climate change. The Obama administration was made up of advocates for renewable energy and natural gas, while Donald Trump built his campaign on promises to revive the coal industry.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Andrew R. Wheeler</span> American attorney (born 1964)

Andrew R. Wheeler is an American attorney who served as the 15th administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from 2019 to 2021. He served as the deputy administrator from April to July 2018, and served as the acting administrator from July 2018 to February 2019. He has been a senior advisor to Governor of Virginia Glenn Youngkin since March 2022. He previously worked in the law firm Faegre Baker Daniels, representing coal magnate Robert E. Murray and lobbying against the Obama administration's environmental regulations. Wheeler served as chief counsel to the United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and to the chairman U.S. senator James Inhofe, prominent for his rejection of climate change. Wheeler is a critic of limits on greenhouse gas emissions and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, 597 U.S. 697 (2022), is a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court relating to the Clean Air Act, and the extent to which the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can regulate carbon dioxide emissions related to climate change.

References

  1. ↑ "Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants". EPA. Archived from the original on March 25, 2016. Retrieved August 14, 2018.
  2. ↑ "Climate change: Obama unveils Clean Power Plan". BBC News . August 3, 2015. Retrieved August 3, 2015.
  3. ↑ Plumer, Brad (August 4, 2015). "How Obama's Clean Power Plan actually works — a step-by-step guide". Vox .
  4. 1 2 Foster, Peter (August 3, 2015). "Barack Obama unveils plan to tackle greenhouse gases and climate change". The Telegraph. Archived from the original on August 3, 2015. Retrieved August 3, 2015.
  5. ↑ Davenport, Coral (March 21, 2017). "Trump Lays Plans to Reverse Obama's Climate Change Legacy". The New York Times .
  6. ↑ Davenport, Coral (March 28, 2017). "Trump Signs Executive Order Unwinding Obama Climate Policies". The New York Times .
  7. 1 2 "Federal Court Extends Suspension Of Clean Power Plan Case". Solar Industry. August 9, 2017. Archived from the original on August 11, 2017. Retrieved August 11, 2017.
  8. ↑ Multiple sources:
  9. 1 2 Green, Miranda (May 21, 2019). "EPA to reconsider cost benefit analysis of air pollution on human life". The Hill. Retrieved May 25, 2019.
  10. ↑ Friedman, Lisa (January 19, 2021). "Court Voids a 'Tortured' Trump Climate Rollback". The New York Times.
  11. ↑ "EPA's Industry-Friendly Climate Rule Struck Down by Court (3)". news.bloomberglaw.com.
  12. ↑ de Vouge, Ariane; Nilson, Ella; Stracqualursi, Veronica (June 30, 2022). "Supreme Court curbs EPA's ability to fight climate change" . Retrieved August 14, 2024.
  13. ↑ "Greenhouse Gas Standards and Guidelines for Fossil Fuel-Fired Power Plants". EPA.gov. April 25, 2023. Retrieved August 14, 2024.
  14. ↑ Malloy, Allie (August 3, 2015). "Obama unveils major climate change proposal". CNN. Retrieved August 3, 2015.
  15. ↑ Roberts, Dan (August 3, 2015). "Obama unveils sweeping cuts to power plant emissions: 'We have to get going'". The Guardian. Retrieved August 3, 2015.
  16. ↑ "How We Passed the Clean Power Plan Target a Decade Early". EPSA. May 28, 2020. Archived from the original on October 22, 2022. Retrieved July 1, 2022.
  17. ↑ Millhiser, Ian (February 23, 2022). "The absurd Supreme Court case that could gut the EPA". Vox. Retrieved July 1, 2022.
  18. ↑ Malloy, Allie (August 3, 2015). "Obama unveils major climate change proposal". CNN. Retrieved August 3, 2015.
  19. 1 2 "FACT SHEET: Overview of the Clean Power Plan". United States EPA. May 6, 2015. Retrieved September 1, 2015.
  20. ↑ "States' Reactions to EPA Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards". www.NCSL.org. Retrieved December 11, 2015.
  21. 1 2 Plumer, Brad (August 3, 2015). "Obama just released his most ambitious climate policy yet — the Clean Power Plan". Vox. Retrieved August 3, 2015.
  22. ↑ EPA, OAR, OAA, US. "FACT SHEET: Clean Power Plan Benefits". www2.epa.gov. Retrieved December 11, 2015.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  23. ↑ "Climate Change". whitehouse.gov . Retrieved December 11, 2015– via National Archives.
  24. ↑ "The Pros and Cons of Obama's New Carbon Rule". The Fiscal Times. Retrieved December 11, 2015.
  25. ↑ "How much of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions are associated with electricity generation?" . Retrieved December 16, 2016.
  26. 1 2 "Extreme Attack on Carbon Pollution Limits for Existing Power Plants (CRA)". National Environmental Scorecard. League of Conservation Voters. February 2, 2016. Retrieved September 29, 2017.
  27. 1 2 Change, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate. "The Paris Agreement – main page". unfccc.int. Retrieved April 6, 2017.
  28. ↑ "See What Climate Change Means for the World's Poor". National Geographic News. December 1, 2015. Archived from the original on December 3, 2015. Retrieved April 6, 2017.
  29. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 EPA, OAR, OAQPS, US (May 6, 2015). "FACT SHEET: Overview of the Clean Power Plan". www.epa.gov. Retrieved April 6, 2017.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  30. 1 2 Putting a Price on Carbon: Ensuring Equity | World Resources Institute. June 4, 2016. ISBN   9781569738887 . Retrieved April 6, 2017.{{cite book}}: |website= ignored (help)
  31. ↑ Holden, Emily (March 28, 2017). "Was the Clean Power Plan Really Bad for the Economy?". Scientific American . Retrieved April 6, 2017.
  32. ↑ "Home". www.nera.com. Retrieved April 6, 2017.
  33. ↑ Kaufman, Noah. "The Economic Impacts of the Clean Power Plan: How Studies of the Same Regulation Can Produce Such Different Results | World Resources Institute". www.wri.org. Retrieved April 6, 2017.
  34. 1 2 "Analysis: Clean Power Plan repeal could cost $600B, result in 120,000 premature deaths". Utility Dive. Retrieved April 5, 2017.
  35. ↑ EPA, OAR, OAQPS, US (May 6, 2015). "Clean Power Plan Community Page". www.EPA.gov. Retrieved April 5, 2017.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  36. 1 2 "Impacts of greenhouse gas regulations on the industrial sector: summary and key results" (PDF). www.eenews.net. March 1, 2017. Retrieved April 13, 2017.
  37. ↑ "Clean energy jobs growth in the United-States" (PDF). www.wri.org. World Resources Institute. February 1, 2017. Retrieved April 13, 2017.
  38. 1 2 Perkins, Lucy (August 3, 2015). "President Obama Unveils New Power Plant Rules In 'Clean Power Plan'". NPR. Retrieved August 3, 2015.
  39. ↑ Davenport, Coral; Davis, Julie Hirschfeld (August 3, 2015). "Move to Fight Climate Plan Started Early". The New York Times. No. August 4, 2015 on page A1. Retrieved February 13, 2016.
  40. ↑ Vaughan, Adam (August 3, 2015). "Obama's clean power plan hailed as US's strongest ever climate action". The Guardian. Retrieved August 3, 2015.
  41. ↑ "Business Support for EPA Clean Power Plan Grows — Ceres". www.ceres.org. Retrieved December 11, 2015.
  42. ↑ "Utility Dive report: The State of the Electric Utility 2016". Utility Dive. 2016. p. 3. Retrieved October 29, 2016. More than two-thirds of respondents think the Environmental Protection Agency should either strengthen the Clean Power Plan or hold to its current emissions targets and timetable. Less than 15% want the plan scrapped entirely and opposition was greatest among electric cooperatives.
  43. ↑ Federal Register, Volume 80, number 205 (PDF), U.S. Government Printing Office, October 23, 2015, pp. 64661–65120, RIN 2060–AR33
  44. ↑ "S. J. Res.24". Congress.gov. Library of Congress. January 11, 2016. Retrieved September 29, 2017.
  45. ↑ Davenport, Coral (November 17, 2015). "Senate Votes to Block Obama's Climate Change Rules". The New York Times . Retrieved September 29, 2017.
  46. ↑ Restuccia, Andrew; Goode, Darren (November 17, 2015). "Senate votes to upend centerpiece of Obama climate pledge". Politico . Retrieved September 29, 2017.
  47. ↑ "House Key Vote Alert: Yes on S.J. Res. 23 & 24". Americans for Prosperity. November 24, 2015. Retrieved October 3, 2017.
  48. 1 2 3 4 Recent Regulation: The Clean Power Plan, 129 Harv. L. Rev. 1152 (February 10, 2016).
  49. ↑ Laurence H. Tribe, Why EPA's Climate Plan Is Unconstitutional, HARV. L. TODAY (March 20, 2015) discussing S. 1630 101st Congress (1990).
  50. ↑ In re Murray Energy Corp., 788 F.3d 330, 333 (D.C. Cir. 2015)
  51. ↑ Davenport, Coral (April 7, 2015). "Laurence Tribe Fights Climate Case Against Star Pupil From Harvard, President Obama". The New York Times. No. April 7, 2015, on page A1. Retrieved February 13, 2016.
  52. ↑ Hearing entitled "EPA's Proposed 111(d) Rule for Existing Power Plants: Legal and Cost Issues" Archived September 11, 2016, at the Wayback Machine , before the Subcommittee on Energy and Power of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce (March 17, 2015).
  53. ↑ "E&E's Power Plan Hub: Legal Challenges – Overview & Documents". www.eenews.net. Retrieved December 11, 2015.
  54. ↑ "Your guide to the Clean Power Plan in the courts" (PDF). E&E News. March 29, 2017.
  55. ↑ Wolf, Richard (February 9, 2016). "Supreme Court blocks President Obama's climate change plan". USA Today. Retrieved February 9, 2016.
  56. ↑ Liptak, Adam; Davenport, Coral. "Supreme Court Deals Blow to Obama's Efforts to Regulate Coal Emissions". The New York Times. No. February 10, 2016 on page A1. Retrieved February 13, 2016.
  57. ↑ Davenport, Coral (July 19, 2016). "Fighting Obama's Climate Plan, but Quietly Preparing to Comply". The New York Times. No. July 19, 2016. Retrieved July 25, 2016.
  58. ↑ Coral Davenport (September 25, 2016). "Obama Climate Plan, Now in Court, May Hinge on Error in 1990 Law". NYT. Retrieved September 26, 2016.
  59. ↑ The Editorial Board (September 30, 2016). "A Flimsy Legal Attack on Clean Air". The New York Times. ISSN   0362-4331 . Retrieved October 1, 2016.
  60. ↑ Priya Singh (March 16, 2017), "Trump Budget 2018 Proposal: Military Wins, Environment Loses", International Business Times
  61. ↑ Davenport, Coral; Rubin, Alissa J. (March 29, 2017). "Trump SIGNS RULE TO BLOCK EFFORTS ON AIDING CLIMATE – Executive Order Is Intended to Dismantle Obama Plan on Curbing Carbon". The New York Times . p. A1. Retrieved March 30, 2017.
  62. ↑ "Trump Administration Seeks Halt to Clean Power Plan Review". Bloomberg. March 28, 2017. Retrieved April 1, 2017.
  63. ↑ Jones, Van (March 29, 2017). "Van Jones: Trump may have signed Earth's death warrant". CNN. Retrieved March 30, 2017.
  64. ↑ "Trump's repeal of climate rules means U.S. cannot meet Paris goals" . Retrieved April 6, 2017.
  65. ↑ "Trump's Plan To Ditch Clean Power Plan Threatens Paris Agreement". NPR.org. Retrieved March 30, 2017.
  66. ↑ "Clean Power Plan architect calls Trump's energy executive order a 'kick in the stomach'". USA TODAY. Retrieved March 30, 2017.
  67. ↑ Volcovici, Valerie (October 4, 2017). "Trump EPA to propose repealing Obama's climate regulation: document". Reuters.
  68. ↑ Dlouhy, Jennifer A (October 6, 2017). "Trump Is Seen Replacing Obama's Power Plant Overhaul With a Tune-Up". Bloomberg .
  69. ↑ Dennis, Brady; Eilperin, Juliet (October 6, 2017). "Trump administration will propose repealing Obama's key effort to combat climate change". The Washington Post .
  70. ↑ "Repeal of Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units" (PDF). United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
  71. ↑ Green, Miranda; Marsh, Renee (October 7, 2017). "EPA to propose repealing Obama-era rule on greenhouse gas emissions". CNN.
  72. ↑ Eilperin, Juliet (October 10, 2017). "EPA's Pruitt signs proposed rule to unravel Clean Power Plan" . Retrieved October 15, 2017– via www.WashingtonPost.com.
  73. ↑ I.K. (October 10, 2017). "Scott Pruitt signs a measure to repeal the Clean Power Plan". The Economist .
  74. ↑ EPA, OAR, US. "Public Hearing: Repealing the Clean Power Plan | US EPA". US EPA. Retrieved November 28, 2017.
  75. ↑ Beitsch, Rebecca (April 17, 2020). "Green groups, coal companies push to have EPA power plant rollback scrapped". The Hill. Retrieved April 20, 2020.
  76. ↑ Frazin, Rachel (January 19, 2021). "Court strikes down Trump coal power plant rule". TheHill.
  77. ↑ Barnes, Robert (October 29, 2021). "Supreme Court will hear challenge to EPA's authority on greenhouse gas limits". The Washington Post. Retrieved June 12, 2022.
  78. ↑ "West Virginia v. EPA" (PDF).

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.