How Trump's rules on coal-fired power plants differ from Obama's

How Trump's rules on coal-fired power plants differ from Obama's

But documents released by the EPA together with the proposed rule say that implementing it is expected to "increase the level of emissions of certain pollutants in the atmosphere that adversely affect human health".

The CPP replacement - which the Trump administration is calling the Affordable Clean Energy, or ACE, rule - gives states three years to come up with plans to reduce Carbon dioxide pollution from coal-fired power plants, primarily through efficiency improvements.

Trump will tout his new proposals Tuesday night in West Virginia, where Republicans are vying to wrench a hotly contested Senate seat from Democrat Sen.

Trump can deny these truths all he likes, but they aren't going away, and neither is the dire threat of climate change, which is why we need a strong policy like the Clean Power Plan.

"To prop up failing coal-fired power plants, the proposal sets paltry pollution limits based on minimal "tune-ups" at those power plants and then authorizes states to weaken the standards even further - or even eliminate them altogether", Lissa Lynch, Staff Attorney for the NRDC, writes.

More news: British film director Danny Boyle drops out of Bond film

When it comes to greenhouse gas emissions, it will slow the decline of carbon dioxide cuts over time.

Announcing the regulation on Tuesday, Bill Wehrum, the EPA's assistant administrator for the office of air and radiation, told journalists that he had worked at the EPA under President George W. Bush when the agency tried to argue that it did not have the legal authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. They're often more expensive than natural gas, solar, or wind energy.

What does this mean for climate change? In the scenario the EPA suggests is the most likely to occur, between 470 to 1,400 people would die in the year 2030 due to increases of the air pollutant PM 2.5, which can cause everything from minor irritations to cancer and heart disease. In contrast, the Clean Power Plan would have been well on its way by now toward its goals of saving lives, driving the growth of affordable clean energy like wind and solar, and meeting America's global commitments to fight climate change.

"This is really a plan to prop up coal plants - or try to", said David Doniger, a climate expert at the Natural Resources Defence Council, an environmental group. Indeed, the White House press release for the new regulation does not contain a single mention of climate change or global warming.

This is just the latest in a series of efforts by the Trump administration to roll back environmental protections.

More news: Celebrity Big Brother responds to Stormy Daniels no-show

Tuesday's move opens a public-comment period on the proposal before any final administration action.

In a New York Times video op-ed, former coal miner Nick Mullins says the health costs should bury Trump's attempts to salvage a dying coal industry.

"Once again, this administration is choosing polluters' profits over public health and safety", he said.

The Supreme Court put Obama's plan on hold in 2016 following a legal challenge by industry and coal-friendly states, an order that remains in effect. John McManus, senior vice president of environmental services at American Electric Power, one of the nation's largest electric utilities, said in an interview that the proposal could keep some coal plants operating that would have had to close otherwise.

The CPP, which Obama's EPA finalized in 2015, sought to reduce emissions from power plants to 32 percent below 2005 levels by 2030.

More news: Google staff demand oversight of China search engine plan

'We agree with those policymakers who have become increasingly concerned that coal retirements are a threat to grid resilience and national security, ' she said.

Related Articles