Become part of the movement for unbiased, accessible election information. Donate today.

Clean Power Plan

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This article does not receive scheduled updates. If you would like to help our coverage grow, consider donating to Ballotpedia. Contact our team to suggest an update.


Public Policy Logo-one line.pngon Energy

Energy Policy Logo on Ballotpedia.png
State energy policy
U.S. energy policy
U.S. fracking policy
Energy terms

This article outlines the specifics of the Clean Power Plan. The timeline and political debate related to the development and finalization of the plan can be accessed here.

The Clean Power Plan is a regulation issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that would mandate reductions in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from new and existing fossil fuel-fired electric steam-generating units (which include coal, oil, and natural gas-fired power plants) and stationary combustion turbines (which include natural-gas-combined-cycle units) by 32 percent from 2005 levels by the year 2030. The plan includes mandatory state-specific CO2 reductions based on the CO2 emission rate of each state's inventory of affected sources of electricity generation. Additionally, the plan includes federally mandated performance rates for new and existing electric generating units. States would be required to obtain approval from the EPA for implementation plans to reduce CO2 emissions. The Clean Power Plan, which was proposed by the EPA in June 2014 and finalized in October 2015, aimed to respond to potentially human-caused climate change by limiting CO2 emissions produced by the utility power sector.[1][2][3]

The plan is an EPA administrative action and did not originate in the legislative branch. In announcing the plan on August 3, 2015, President Barack Obama (D) stated, "When the world faces its toughest challenges, America leads the way forward. That's what this plan is about." When the EPA finalized the Clean Power Plan in 2015, the agency justified the plan based on the EPA's interpretation of the Clean Air Act. As of March 2017, utilities, coal mining companies, and 27 states sued the federal government over the plan. As of March 2017, 18 states, several municipalities, and environmental groups filed briefs siding with the EPA in the litigation. In February 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court temporarily halted the rule's implementation pending federal litigation related to the plan's legality.[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]

On March 28, 2017, President Donald Trump (R) signed an executive order directing the EPA to consider formally repealing the Clean Power Plan, stating, "Perhaps no single regulation threatens our miners, energy workers, and companies more than this crushing attack [the Clean Power Plan] on American industry." On October 10, 2017, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt issued a proposed rule to repeal the plan, arguing that the plan "was premised on a novel and expansive view of Agency authority" and "ignored states' concerns and eroded longstanding and important partnerships that are a necessary part of achieving positive environmental outcomes." On August 21, 2018, the EPA released its proposal for the Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule, a replacement for the Clean Power Plan.[13][14][15][16][17]

Overview

Summary

In September 2013, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy testified before the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee about how the EPA would approach policies related to climate change, global warming, and limits on carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions following the announcement of President Barack Obama's (D) Climate Action Plan in June 2013. When asked about whether the agency's proposed climate regulations would directly affect the climate change indicators listed on the EPA's website—such as higher ocean temperatures, the amount of snowpack, and the frequency of wildfires—McCarthy said, "It is unlikely that any specific one step is going to be seen as having a visible change on any of those impacts. What I’m suggesting is that climate change has to be a broad array of actions that the U.S. and other folks in the international community take that make a significant effort toward reducing greenhouse gases." McCarthy went on to clarify, "What we're attempting to do is put together a comprehensive climate plan across the administration that positions the U.S. for leadership on this issue and that will prompt and leverage international discussions and actions."[18]

In October 2015, the EPA finalized the Clean Power Plan (CPP), formally called "Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units". The plan is composed of two separate regulations: mandatory CO2 reductions for new electric generating units and mandatory CO2 reductions for existing electric generating units.[10][19][11][20][21][22]

Under the plan, the EPA cited its authority under section 111(b) of the Clean Air Act to require CO2 performance standards for new electric generating units. Section 111(b) allows the EPA to set performance standards for new, modified, and reconstructed sources of air pollution. The standards, known as New Source Performance Standards, would require fossil fuel-fired electric steam-generating units (which include oil, coal, and natural gas-powered units) to meet a rate of 1,100 pounds of CO2 per megawatt hour (Mwh) by the year 2030. In addition, the standards would require smaller natural gas-powered stationary combustion turbines to meet a rate of 1,100 pounds of CO2 per Mwh and would require larger combustion turbines to meet a rate of 1,000 pounds of CO2 per Mwh by the year 2030.[10][20][21]

Under the plan, the EPA cited section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act to require CO2 reductions at existing electric generating units. Section 111(d) allows the EPA to set guidelines to reduce air pollutants from existing sources. States then establish programs to meet the guidelines. The Clean Power Plan would require mandatory, state-specific CO2 emissions reductions based on the CO2 emission rate of each state's inventory of affected sources of electricity generation. The plan would require each state to meet interim targets beginning in the year 2022 and meet final targets by January 1, 2030, and maintain the final targets thereafter.[10][20][21]

Further, the plan would require states to adopt performance standards—known as the best system of emission reduction (BSER)—to reduce CO2 emissions from affected power plants. States would have to receive approval from the EPA between 2016 and 2018 for state implementation plans. Under the plan, if the EPA does not approve a state plan, the agency would then enforce a federal implementation plan for the state.[10][20][21]


Building blocks

Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA must designate the best system of emissions reduction (BSER) for facilities that produce certain air pollutants, including sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, and particulate matter. The BSER includes technologies that the EPA administrator determines have been adequately demonstrated to reduce emissions. In addition, the BSER must take into account the costs of reducing emissions, any non-air quality health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements. Under the Clean Power Plan, the BSER is composed of three components (known as building blocks) that include a combination of measures states would have to adopt to reduce CO2 emissions at new and existing electric generating units.[10][20][21]

Block one

  • Block one would require existing electric generating units to improve the efficiency (also known as the heat rate) of their units. In 2015, the EPA argued that existing coal-fired power plants should adopt certain operational measures and equipment to reduce emissions. Critics of the EPA's recommendation argue that these measures and equipment are technically and/or financially infeasible and would result in the closure of several coal-fired power plants.[10][20][21][23]

Block two

  • Block two would require power plant operators to shift their use of coal-fired electric generating units toward greater use of natural gas-combined-cycle units (NGCC) to generate electricity and to increase the efficiency of their NGCC units. This shift, known as generation-shifting, was challenged by 27 states in litigation as unauthorized by the Clean Air Act (see the legal challenges tab on this article for more information).[10][20][21][23][24]

Block three

  • Block three would require states to generate more of their electricity from sources that emit fewer CO2 emissions, such as nuclear power plants and renewable energy sources (other examples include wind, solar, and hydroelectric power). Likewise, this building block requiring generation-shifting was challenged in litigation by petitioners as unlawful under the Clean Air Act (see the legal challenges tab on this article for more information).[10][20][21][23]

Block four
 Note: Block four was not included in the final plan.

  • In the EPA's 2014 Clean Power Plan proposal, block four would require states to increase demand-side energy efficiency. In other words, states would have to decrease their overall electricity consumption through various energy efficiency measures, such as buildings that use less electricity and homes retrofitted with equipment to reduce energy use and increase energy efficiency. The EPA did not include this block in the final plan due to concerns that these energy efficiency measures were unlawful as the best system of emission reduction (BSER).[10][20][21][23][25]

Carbon capture and sequestration

Under the Clean Power Plan, the EPA would require CO2 performance standards for new coal-fired power plants. Specifically, the standards would require new coal plants to implement partial carbon capture and sequestration technology (CCS). CCS technology involves capturing CO2 emitted from a power plant and transporting and depositing it to a storage site so that the CO2 will not enter the atmosphere. The technology captures pre- or post-combustion CO2 and injects the gas into long-term storage areas, such as a geological formation.[26]

According to the 2014 National Climate Assessment, a report on climate change and CO2 issued by the U.S. Global Change Research Program (a federal research group established in 1990), CCS technology has the potential to capture 90 percent of CO2 emissions from coal and natural gas use in the industrial and electric power sector. Additionally, the assessment stated, "CCS substantially increases the cost of building and operating a power plant, both through up-front costs and additional energy use during operation (referred to as 'parasitic loads' or an energy penalty)." Further, the report's authors argued that CCS is an experimental technology whose costs, feasibility, environmental impacts, and efficacy remain uncertain.[26]

Critics of the EPA's use of CCS argue that CCS is an unproven technology that has not been fully assessed for its costs and environmental impact. The Institute for Energy Research, a nonprofit research group that supports free market energy policies, argued that EPA's use of CCS technology to set performance standards for new coal power plants is arbitrary and unauthorized. According to the organization's public comment on the plan, "EPA is correct not to require CCS for natural gas, but EPA should be consistent and not require CCS for coal-fired power plants."[27]

National emission performance rates

Under the plan, fossil fuel-powered electric generating units (which include coal, oil, and natural gas-fired units) and stationary combustion turbines (such as natural-gas-combined-cycle power plants) would have to meet national CO2 emission performance rates, which are measured in pounds of CO2 per megawatt hour of electricity generated (the EPA's 2014 proposal did not include national emission performance rates).[10][20][21][23]

State implementation plans

Under the plan, states would adopt implementation plans to reduce CO2 emissions based on one of two targets: an emission rate target (measured in pounds of CO2 per megawatt hour) or a mass-based target (measured in tons of CO2). These plans would have to be approved by the EPA. Further, the Clean Power Plan would require one of two types of state plans: an emission standards plan or a state measures plan. Under an emission standards plan, a state must implement national CO2 emission performance rates for all affected electric generating units in the state. Under a state measures plan, a state must meet the equivalent of national emission performance rates through enforceable federal and state standards. For example, a state can count emissions reductions associated with its own state-level renewable energy requirements, such as a Renewable Portfolio Standard, which requires electric utilities to generate a certain percentage of their electricity from renewable sources by a given year. States would also be allowed to trade CO2 emissions credits with each other under a multi-state plan if each participating state adopts the same target standard (either a rate-based target or a mass-based target).[10][20][21][23]

Clean Energy Incentive Program

The finalized version of the Clean Power Plan includes an optional program for states to fund renewable energy and energy efficiency measures before the year 2022. The Clean Energy Incentive Program (CEIP) would distribute emission credits or allowances to participating states that fund wind and solar projects and energy efficiency programs in low-income communities (these credits or allowances depend on whether the state adopts a rate-based or mass-based CO2 target). States would then use these credits or allowances to meet their CO2 target. Additionally, credits can be sold to a regulated CO2 emission source to comply with a state-specific CO2 target.[10][20][21][23]

State emission reduction targets

CO2 power plant reduction targets by state
Scroll over a state to see its CO2 percentage reduction target.

The Clean Power Plan would require interim and final CO2 emission targets for each state based on the presence of two subcategories of electric-generating units (EGUs) in each state: fossil fuel-fired electric steam-generating units and stationary combustion turbines. In 2015, the EPA argued that fossil fuel-fired EGUs may release more CO2 than NGCC EGUs and thus would affect the state's reduction target. A state's interim goal would have to be met between the years 2022 and 2029, and the final goal would have to be met by the year 2030 and maintained thereafter. All final state targets fall between 771 pounds of CO2 per megawatt hour (Mwh) and 1,305 pounds of CO2 per Mwh. As of March 2017, Hawaii and Alaska were exempt from the Clean Power Plan because the EPA did not have the necessary data to determine the best system of emission reduction for those states. Vermont did not have an emission target because it did not have any affected EGUs as of March 2017.[10][20][21][23][28][29][30][31]

The following table shows the 2012 CO2 emissions baseline used by the EPA to calculate each state's interim and final CO2 targets and the total percentage reduction in CO2 required by each state under the plan.[10]

CO2 reduction targets by state, in pounds per megawatt hours (lbs/Mwh)
State 2012
(lbs/MWh) 		Interim goal, 2022-2029
(lbs/MWh) 		Final goal, 2030 and beyond
(lbs/MWh) 		Percentage reduction, 2012-2030
Alabama 1,518 1,157 1,018 -32.94%
Alaska* N/A N/A N/A N/A
Arizona 1,552 1,173 1,031 -33.57%
Arkansas 1,779 1,304 1,130 -36.48%
California 963 907 828 -14.02%
Colorado 1,973 1,362 1,174 -40.50%
Connecticut 846 852 786 -7.09%
Delaware 1,254 1,023 916 -26.95%
Florida 1,247 1,026 919 -26.30%
Georgia 1,600 1,198 1,049 -34.44%
Hawaii* N/A N/A N/A N/A
Idaho 858 832 771 -10.14%
Illinois 2,208 1,456 1,245 -43.61%
Indiana 2,021 1,451 1,242 -38.55%
Iowa 2,195 1,505 1,283 -41.55%
Kansas 2,319 1,519 1,293 -44.24%
Kentucky 2,166 1,509 1,286 -40.63%
Louisiana 1,618 1,293 1,121 -30.72%
Maine 873 842 779 -10.77%
Maryland 2,031 1,510 1,287 -36.63%
Massachusetts 1,003 902 824 -17.85%
Michigan 1,928 1,355 1,169 -39.37%
Minnesota 2,033 1,414 1,213 -40.33%
Mississippi 1,185 1,061 945 -20.25%
Missouri 2,008 1,490 1,272 -36.65%
Montana 2,481 1,534 1,305 -47.40%
Nebraska 2,161 1,522 1,296 -40.03%
Nevada 1,102 942 855 -22.41%
New Hampshire 1,119 947 858 -23.32%
New Jersey 1,091 885 812 -25.57%
New Mexico 1,798 1,325 1,146 -36.26%
New York 1,140 1,025 918 -19.47%
North Carolina 1,780 1,311 1,136 -36.18%
North Dakota 2,368 1,534 1,305 -44.89%
Ohio 1,900 1,383 1,190 -37.37%
Oklahoma 1,565 1,223 1,068 -31.76%
Oregon 1,089 964 871 -20.02%
Pennsylvania 1,682 1,258 1,095 -34.90%
Rhode Island 918 832 771 -16.01%
South Carolina 1,791 1,338 1,156 -35.46%
South Dakota 2,229 1,352 1,167 -47.64%
Tennessee 2,015 1,411 1,211 -39.90%
Texas 1,566 1,188 1,042 -33.46%
Utah 1,874 1,368 1,179 -37.09%
Vermont** N/A N/A N/A N/A
Virginia 1,477 1,047 934 -36.76%
Washington 1,566 1,111 983 -37.23%
West Virginia 2,064 1,534 1,305 -36.77%
Wisconsin 1,996 1,364 1,176 -41.08%
Wyoming 2,331 1,526 1,299 -44.27%
*The EPA did not set reduction goals for Alaska or Hawaii in the final version of the CPP because the agency did not have the necessary information to determine the BSER for those states.
**Vermont does not have a reduction goal because the state does not have affected electric generating units.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Clean Power Plan State Goal Visualizer"

Power plant type by state

The table below shows the amount of electricity generated by fossil fuel-fired power plants and stationary combustion turbines in each state in 2012. The following data was used by the EPA to calculate each state's CO2 reduction targets. In general, states with more fossil fuel-generated electricity would be required to meet larger CO2 reduction targets under the plan.[10][32]

2012 electric generation by power plant type in the 50 states, in megawatt hours (MWh)
State Fossil fuel-generated electric output
(MWh) 		Natural gas-generated electric output
(MWh) 		Percentage of electric generation from fossil fuel plants Percentage of electric generation from natural gas plants
Alabama 46,059,840 53,492,096 46% 54%
Arizona 32,154,992 15,651,185 67% 33%
Arkansas 25,370,640 26,783,421 49% 51%
California 11,112,636 93,068,612 11% 89%
Colorado 34,248,809 11,131,370 75% 25%
Connecticut 438,650 15,299,704 3% 97%
Delaware 2,491,497 6,672,111 27% 73%
Florida 56,452,021 147,327,444 28% 72%
Georgia 40,990,604 37,728,636 52% 48%
Idaho 0 3,450,055 0% 100%
Illinois 84,487,750 10,627,106 89% 11%
Indiana 96,338,455 12,839,309 88% 12%
Iowa 33,314,157 1,430,248 96% 4%
Kansas 29,631,845 666,706 98% 2%
Kentucky 84,364,121 3,091,968 96% 4%
Louisiana 36,937,785 19,352,269 66% 34%
Maine 68,163 4,677,598 1% 99%
Maryland 19,190,189 676,556 97% 3%
Massachusetts 2,611,409 23,554,517 10% 90%
Michigan 53,985,652 18,499,951 74% 26%
Minnesota 27,587,742 5,715,510 83% 17%
Mississippi 15,557,042 32,147,488 33% 67%
Missouri 72,859,571 4,854,569 94% 6%
Montana 15,432,987 0 100% 0%
Nebraska 24,698,865 423,638 98% 2%
Nevada 4,413,515 23,783,256 16% 84%
New Hampshire 1,353,955 6,946,869 16% 84%
New Jersey 2,775,579 33,664,782 8% 92%
New Mexico 13,561,988 5,730,957 70% 30%
New York 16,661,795 44,035,434 27% 73%
North Carolina 54,920,452 25,519,802 68% 32%
North Dakota 28,513,456 0 100% 0%
Ohio 86,729,105 23,687,009 79% 21%
Oklahoma 37,590,918 29,943,376 56% 44%
Oregon 3,116,931 13,486,830 19% 81%
Pennsylvania 88,716,925 57,420,455 61% 39%
Rhode Island 0 8,140,017 0% 100%
South Carolina 28,875,797 11,209,394 72% 28%
South Dakota 4,004,975 1,401,048 74% 26%
Tennessee 34,373,696 7,333,244 82% 18%
Texas 164,311,070 160,034,168 51% 49%
Utah 27,452,488 8,486,187 76% 24%
Virginia 16,015,084 36,291,895 31% 69%
Washington 7,733,957 11,728,154 40% 60%
West Virginia 70,078,373 0 100% 0%
Wisconsin 32,160,389 10,244,273 76% 24%
Wyoming 42,907,427 483,120 99% 1%
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Clean Power Plan State Goal Visualizer"

Grid reliability

Reliability issues

An issue involving the Clean Power Plan is its potential impact on electric grid reliability. A reliable electric grid can provide electricity to consumers without interruptions when demand is high. Under the Clean Power Plan, multiple coal and oil-fired power plants would be closed, leading to fewer electric generators and less baseload power for the electric grid. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration in May 2015, 40 gigawatts of coal-fired electricity generation were expected to retire by the year 2017 and 90 gigawatts of coal-fired electricity generation were expected to retire by the year 2020 if the plan were fully implemented. In 2015, the EPA argued that renewable energy sources would replace closed power plants. For example, wind and solar projects would be used to provide electricity in lieu of coal and oil-fed electric generating units. Critics of the Clean Power Plan argue that this outcome would strain the electric grid and lead to blackouts or brownouts (reduction in or restriction on electric power availability in a particular area or region). Additionally, critics argue that the transition from coal to other sources of electricity generation from 2015 to 2022 would lead to increased natural gas prices for consumers and higher costs for natural gas-powered plant infrastructure.[10][20][21][23]

According to the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), which is authorized by Congress to oversee electric grid reliability, an electric grid that relies more on renewable energy sources and maintains reliability could produce planning and operational difficulties. In its 2014 review of the Clean Power Plan, NERC made the following conclusions:[10][20][21][23][33][34][35][36]

  1. The Clean Power Plan would accelerate the electric grid's shift from coal-fired electricity generation to renewable sources and natural gas. According to NERC, "New reliability challenges may arise with the integration of generation resources that have different ERS [Electric Reliability Services] characteristics than the units that are projected to retire."[37]
  2. Grid operators may need more time than is allowed by the Clean Power Plan to plan for and implement additional transmission measures to maintain grid reliability. According to NERC, "Constructing the resource additions, as well as the expected transmission enhancements, may represent a significant reliability challenge given the constrained time period for implementation."
  3. The Clean Power Plan would increase the use of natural gas-powered electricity generation, which would require additional updates to natural gas pipelines to meet demand and ensure reliability. According to NERC, "Increased natural gas use will require pipeline expansion to maintain a reliable source of fuel, particularly during the peak winter heating season."

In response to reliability concerns, the EPA argued in 2015 that the plan would not require "compliance with the final rule to interfere with industry’s ability to maintain the reliability of the nation’s electricity supply." In addition, the agency argued that the Clean Power Plan provides options to achieve CO2 emissions and support grid reliability. For example, the EPA argued that an emission trading system within or between states would support electricity grid reliability.[38]

Legal issues

Legal challenges

On April 28, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which heard oral arguments on the plan in September 2016, granted a request by the Trump administration to halt the lawsuit against the plan. As a result, the court will not rule on whether the plan is lawful.[39][40]

In an article summarizing the Clean Power Plan, the Harvard Law Review argued that the plan "represents an unprecedented exercise of the EPA’s jurisdiction over the energy sector." As such, the Clean Power Plan has been subject to several legal challenges focusing on the EPA's interpretation of the Clean Air Act to justify the regulation of CO2 and greenhouse gas emissions from existing electric generating units.[2]

As of February 2017, more than 100 parties—including 27 states, three labor organizations, several electric utilities, several nonprofits, and more than two dozen coal and oil companies—filed over 35 lawsuits challenging the Clean Power Plan. The lawsuits were consolidated into the case State of West Virginia, et al v. EPA. As of February 2017, eighteen states, the District of Columbia, over 50 municipalities, several power companies, and several environmental nonprofits have filed amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs in support of the Clean Power Plan.[21]

Section 111 of the Clean Air Act addresses air pollutants released from new and existing stationary sources. The section directs the EPA to list categories of stationary sources that release pollutants "which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare" and to establish new performance standards for new stationary sources in any category. In addition, section 111 directs the EPA to require states to submit plans outlining performance standards for existing stationary sources within a category.[41]

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued its New Source Performance Standards for CO2 emissions from new fossil fuel-fired power plants under section 111(b) of the Clean Air Act. Additionally, the EPA issued its CO2 emissions reductions for existing electric generating units under section 111(d) of the act.[10]

Below is a summary of the legal arguments made by petitioners and respondents in the litigation involving the Clean Power Plan. These arguments cover the following issues:

  • Standard of review over the Clean Power Plan
  • The scope of the EPA's authority under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act
  • The question of whether Section 111 allows a shift in electricity generation from coal-fired plants to sources that emit less CO2
  • Whether section 111 excludes the double regulation of sources that are already regulated for their hazardous air pollutants under section 112
  • Constitutional issues
  • Feasibility of emission reductions
  • Other legal arguments

Arguments

Standard of review

The parties in the lawsuit over the Clean Power Plan have argued how federal courts should review the EPA's interpretation of the section 111 of the Clean Air Act. At issue in the case is Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (1984), in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a court reviewing an agency's rule should defer to the agency's interpretation of an ambiguous statute as long as the interpretation is reasonable, a principle known as Chevron deference.[42]

Petitioners argue that the Clean Power Plan represents a significant expansion of the EPA's regulatory authority. In support of this view, petitioners cite Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA (2014). In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that clear congressional approval is required if the EPA's interpretation of a statute "would bring about an enormous and transformative expansion in EPA’s regulatory authority." Petitioners argue that the Clean Power Plan qualifies as such an expansion.[42]

Additionally, petitioners argue that the EPA should not be granted deference to its legal interpretation under Chevron. These petitioners cite King v. Burwell (2015), in which the U.S. Supreme Court refused to defer to the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) interpretation of the Affordable Care Act regarding insurance premium tax credits because the IRS did not have the expertise required to draft health insurance policies.[42]

Respondents, including the EPA, argue that the court should grant deference to the EPA's statutory interpretation under the Chevron decision. In its brief, the EPA argued that the Clean Air Act delegates authority to the agency to fill gaps left by the act involving pollution reduction at stationary sources, specifically at sources that have been regulated since the Clean Air Act was passed. According to the EPA, the Burwell decision does not apply because the Clean Power Plan involves the EPA's interpretation of a statute that it has administered since the act's passage, which was not the case with regard to the IRS and the Affordable Care Act. Further, the EPA argued that the provisions are related to the EPA's central mission to reduce air pollution and thus the agency's interpretation should be granted deference. Additionally, the EPA argued that the Utility Air Regulatory Group decision did not nullify the Chevron decision but represented a particular application of Chevron that did not apply to the Clean Power Plan case.[42]

Scope of EPA authority

Petitioners argue that the Clean Power Plan's measures to shift electricity generation from coal-fed electric generating units to units that emit less CO2 are unlawful; these measures are represented in building blocks two and three described on the Overview tab. Petitioners argue that these measures exceed the EPA's statutory authority under section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act. Specifically, petitioners contend that section 111 allows the EPA to require measures that can be applied solely to the performance of an individual source. These measures would include pollution control technologies or certain operational and design standards for regulated sources. However, petitioners argue that the EPA is not applying performance standards to an individual source but is instead attempting to shift the generation of electricity (known as generation-shifting) from one type of unit (such as a coal-fed unit) to another (such as a solar or wind-powered unit). Petitioners argue that such generation-shifting is not permitted under section 111 of the act. According to petitioners, the Clean Power Plan in effect allows the EPA to reorganize the U.S. electric grid and the energy mix of all states, which they argue goes beyond Congress' intent when it passed the Clean Air Act.[42]

Additionally, the petitioners argue that the EPA cannot require states to adopt CO2 reductions that can only be achieved by closing affected electric generating units, such as coal-powered units. In other words, petitioners contend that the Clean Power Plan would result in reducing or ceasing electricity generation from affected units in favor of units approved by the EPA, such as wind and solar-powered units. Further, petitioners argue that the Clean Air Act requires a standard of performance that improves the emission performance of a regulated source, rather than a standard that reduces the source's performance or shuts the source down.[42]

In its brief, the EPA argued that its shifting of electricity generation qualifies as the best system for emission reduction under the Clean Air Act. Specifically, the EPA contended that the act's language "establishes that a broad scope of potential pollution-curbing measures can serve as the basis of guidelines." In other words, the EPA argued that an electricity sector-wide approach for its system for emission reduction, rather than a system that is applied to a single regulated source, is permissible under the Clean Air Act.[42]

Constitutional issues

Petitioners argue that the Clean Power Plan violates the U.S. Constitution. Specifically, the petitioners, including 27 states, contend that the plan breaches traditional state police powers over a state's electric grid and coerces state officials and state legislatures. According to petitioners, states must have an opportunity to decline implementation of a federal program and that the Clean Power Plan does not provide such an opportunity. In addition, petitioners argue that states that do not implement the requirements of the Clean Power Plan are coerced either to adopt a plan conforming to federal policy or face insufficient electricity generation to meet demand. In their amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief, members of Congress who oppose the Clean Power Plan argue that the plan violates the Clean Air Act's principle of cooperative federalism, which says that state governments must maintain the authority to administer, implement, and enforce any nationally prescribed standards. Further, the principle of cooperative federalism means that the federal government cannot compel states to adopt a federal regulatory program, according to the brief.[42]

In its brief, the EPA argued that the Clean Power Plan follows the principle of cooperative federalism. Specifically, the agency contended that states are permitted not to adopt a state implementation plan and that a federal implementation plan does not require states to take on new regulatory responsibilities. In their brief, the 18 states supporting the Clean Power Plan argued that states will still oversee and regulate electric utilities and will oversee the decisions made by power plant operators to comply with the Clean Power Plan.[42]

Double regulation of sources

In 1990, Congress amended section 112 of the Clean Air Act and included a list of 189 hazardous air pollutants that the EPA must regulate from stationary sources. Both the House and Senate passed amendments related to section 112, both of which were signed into law. The House amendment was added to the United States Code (the official compilation of all federal statutes of the United States); the Senate amendment was included in the U.S. Statutes at Large (the legal and permanent evidence of all the laws enacted at a session of Congress) but not in the United States Code. Under the House amendment, the EPA cannot set emission guidelines under section 111(d) for any air pollutant that is included on a list published under section 108(a) of the act or emitted by a source category regulated under section 112. Under the Senate amendment, the EPA cannot regulate any air pollutant included on a list published under section 108(a) or found in section 112. In other words, the Senate amendment excluded the regulation of specific air pollutants under section 112 from regulation under section 111(d), whereas the House amendment excluded any source category regulated under section 112 from regulation under section 111(d). As such, the Senate amendment is consistent with the EPA's interpretation of section 111(d).[42]

Petitioners argue that the EPA cannot regulate power plants for CO2 emissions under section 111(d) because the Clean Air Act prohibits the regulation of any source category that is regulated for its hazardous air pollutants under section 112. The petitioners argue that the Senate amendment should be disregarded because it was rendered unnecessary by the enactment of the House amendment.[42]

In its brief, the EPA argued that under the Senate amendment it has the authority under section 111(d) to regulate CO2 from power plants as long as CO2 is not regulated as a hazardous air pollutant, even if power plants are regulated as a source category under section 112. In addition, the EPA argued that it is entitled to deference under Chevron due to the ambiguity brought on by the two amendments. Petitioners respond that Congress did not pass two different versions of section 111(d); thus, there is no ambiguity and the EPA should not receive deference to its interpretation.[42]

Feasibility of emission reductions

Petitioners argue that the EPA has not shown that its best system of emission reduction or the three building blocks have been adequately demonstrated. The petitioners contend that the emission guidelines are not achievable given the definition of the term standard for performance in section 111 of the Clean Air Act. They also argue that achieving the mandatory emission reductions would be impossible for states. In its brief, the EPA argued that it based emission reduction targets for each state on reasonable and conservative estimates. In addition, the agency contended that it considered all costs, infrastructure needs, and grid reliability issues when the agency established state-specific reduction targets.[42]

Other legal arguments

Laurence Tribe, a Harvard Law professor, filed comments during the EPA's public comment period arguing that the EPA violated the authority of the government to exercise its powers of eminent domain under the Fifth Amendment's takings clause. Eminent domain is the power exercised by the government to take private property for a public purpose. The Fifth Amendment's takings clause requires that the government provide just compensation to the property holder during eminent domain. Tribe argued that the Clean Power Plan limits an energy company's ability to use its coal-fired power plants without just compensation in violation the Fifth Amendment. Tribe also argued that the Clean Power Plan violates the Tenth Amendment because the plan forces states to either establish their own implementation plans or be forced to implement the federal government's implementation plan. The Tenth Amendment provides that states have authority to implement their own laws and regulations unless the Constitution either grants exclusive authority to the federal government to set the law or specifically prohibits the states from doing so.[11][43][44]

Supreme Court

An appeal by 27 states and other groups to block the Clean Power Plan was dismissed by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in January 2016. The states appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. On February 9, 2016, the Supreme Court overturned the lower court's ruling and issued a stay on the plan's implementation while the appeals court considers legal challenges against the plan. Under the stay, the EPA cannot legally enforce any related deadlines, including the September 6, 2016, deadline states had for submitting implementation plans for approval. Additionally, a group of 60 utility and energy companies filed for a stay against the plan.[21][45][46]

On September 27, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit heard oral arguments on the Clean Power Plan. On April 28, 2017, the court granted a request by the Trump administration to halt the lawsuit against the plan. As a result, the court will not rule on whether the plan is lawful.[47][48]

Predicted benefits

Predicted benefits

Economic modeling
The EPA and other organizations use econometric modeling systems to predict the economic, environmental, and health outcomes of the Clean Power Plan. Any system used to predict policy outcomes is dependent on the assumptions used when building the model. Additionally, results are theoretical and may not be universally accepted.

In 2015, the EPA argued that the Clean Power Plan would reduce CO2 emissions by 870 million tons by the year 2030. Further, the EPA argued that the plan would produce monetized climate benefits of $20 billion in 2030 and between $12 billion and $34 billion in health benefits related to air pollution reduction. The agency's estimate of climate benefits is based on a measure known as the social cost of carbon, which is defined as the monetary value of worldwide impacts from changes in CO2 emissions. This monetary value includes net changes in agricultural productivity, human health, property damage from an increased risk in flooding, reduced costs for home heating, and increased costs for air conditioning, among others. The EPA's air pollution health benefits are based on potential reductions in exposure to fine particulate matter and ground-level ozone (also known as smog), which are already regulated under the Clean Air Act's National Ambient Air Quality Standards provision. In August 2016, the EPA argued that the social cost of carbon was approximately $40—each ton of CO2 emitted was estimated to result in $40 of future economic costs.[49][50][51]

Debate over benefits

Critics of the EPA's social cost of carbon estimate argue that the measure is imprecise and arbitrary and thus is used to inflate the benefits of the Clean Power Plan. In a study released in April 2016 by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, the organization's analysts argued that the statistical models used to calculate the social cost of CO2 can be used to reflect the assumptions of those who calculate the cost of carbon; thus, the measure is not an objective standard for measuring overall costs. In addition, the authors contended that the measure takes into account the potential climate benefits throughout the world while the costs of the Clean Power Plan would be paid for by Americans. Further, the study's authors argued that one model used to calculate the social cost of carbon found that the social cost was negative; thus, the model showed that there were net benefits associated with rising global temperatures and higher CO2 emissions. The full study can be accessed here.[33][52]

A January 2015 study published in the journal Nature Climate Change critiqued the EPA's calculation of the social cost of carbon. The study's authors—two Ph.D. candidates at Stanford University—argued that the social cost of carbon was higher than the EPA's figure and stood at $220 per ton of CO2. The study's authors further argued that countries should implement stronger measures to accelerate a reduction in CO2 emissions from energy sources.[53]

Other critics of the Clean Power Plan argue that it would have little to no effect on rising global temperatures. In 2015, climate scientists Patrick J. Michaels and Paul C. Knappenberger at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, used the EPA's model for assessing CO2-induced climate change and argued that the Clean Power Plan would reduce future warming by 0.018 degrees Celsius by the year 2100. Michaels and Knappenberger contended that this reduction "will have no appreciable impact on the future course of climate." In 2013, Michaels and Knappenberger argued that eliminating all CO2 emissions produced in the United States would reduce future warming by 0.137 degrees Celsius by the year 2100, which the authors argued would have no measurable impact on future changes in the climate. To calculate this figure, Michaels and Knappenberger used the climate model used by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to assess future global temperatures.[54][55][56][57][58][59]

Note: If you would like to nominate another study of the Clean Power Plan, contact us at editor@ballotpedia.org.

Predicted costs

Predicted costs

Economic modeling
The EPA and other organizations use econometric modeling systems to predict the economic, environmental and health outcomes of the Clean Power Plan. Any system used to predict policy outcomes is dependent on the assumptions used when building the model. Additionally, results are theoretical and may not be universally accepted.

In 2015, the EPA argued that the cost of the Clean Power Plan depends on the compliance approach adopted by each state. Under the plan, states either use a rate-based or mass-based approach to reduce CO2 emissions. The EPA argued that the annual incremental compliance cost with a mass-based approach would be $1.4 billion in the year 2020, $3 billion in the year 2025, and $5.1 billion in the year 2030. The annual incremental compliance cost under the rate-based approach would be $2.5 billion in 2020, $1 billion in 2025, and $8.4 billion in 2030. The EPA contended that the above cost estimates "do not represent the full suite of compliance flexibilities states may ultimately pursue." According to the EPA, the above cost estimates include "the net change in the annualized cost of capital investment in new generating sources and heat rate improvements at coal-fired steam-generating units, the change in the ongoing costs of operating pollution controls, shifts between or amongst various fuels, demand-side energy efficiency measures, and other actions associated with compliance." In addition, the EPA contended that the national average retail electricity price would increase by less than 1 percent in 2025 and in 2030 compared to the agency's baseline scenario. However, the EPA stated that electricity price changes would vary by region. For example, according to the EPA's analysis, the Wisconsin/Michigan region would see a 5.9 percent increase in average retail electricity prices in 2030 while the Long Island region would see a 9 percent decrease in average retail electricity prices compared to the agency's baseline scenario. The EPA's full regulatory impact analysis (published in October 2015) can be accessed here.[10][20][21][23][60]

The table below shows the EPA's projection of retail electricity prices (in cents per kilowatt hour) in the year 2030 by regional market. The information below is found in the EPA's October 2015 regulatory impact analysis of the Clean Power Plan. A map outlining the states in each regional electricity market can be found below.

2030 projected retail electricity prices by region (cents/kWh)
Regional market Base retail price Retail price (rate-based) Retail price (mass-based) Percentage change (rate-based) Percentage change (mass-based)
Texas Reliability Entity (ERCT) 11.6 11.4 11.3 -1.4% -2.5%
Florida Reliability Coordinating Council (FRCC) 10.3 10.8 10.5 4.6% 2.3%
Midwest Reliability Organization - East (MROE) 9.7 10.3 10.3 5.9% 6.3%
Midwest Reliability Organization - West (MROW) 8.9 9.1 9.1 2.7% 2.8%
Northeast Power Coordinating Council - New England (NEWE) 14.3 13.6 13.4 -5.4% -6.9%
Northeast Power Coordinating Council / New York City – Westchester (NWCW) 19.2 18.2 18 -5.2% -6.4%
Northeast Power Coordinating Council - Long Island (NYLI) 16.3 14.8 14.6 -9.0% -10.1%
Northeast Power Coordinating Council - Upstate New York (NYUP) 13.6 12.7 12.5 -7.0% -8.4%
Reliability First Corporation - East (RFCE) 11.3 10.7 10.6 -5.6% -6.5%
Reliability First Corporation - Michigan (RFCM) 10.5 10.8 10.7 3.4% 1.7%
Reliability First Corporation - West (RFCW) 10.4 10.5 10.5 1.2% 0.7%
SERC Reliability Corporation - Delta (SRDA) 9 9.3 9.2 3.5% 1.9%
SERC Reliability Corporation - Gateway (SRGW) 9.7 9.6 9.7 -0.6% 0.4%
SERC Reliability Corporation - Southeastern (SRSE) 9.8 10.2 10 3.9% 2.1%
SERC Reliability Corporation - Central (SRCE) 7.8 8.1 8 4.3% 3.3%
SERC Reliability Corporation / Virginia-Carolina (SRVC) 9.3 9.6 9.5 3.2% 2.0%
Southwest Power Pool Regional Entity - North (SPNO) 9.5 9.8 10.1 2.7% 5.8%
Southwest Power Pool Regional Entity - South (SPSO) 8.7 9 8.9 3.9% 2.0%
Western Electricity Coordinating Council - Southwest (AZNM) 10.9 11.2 11.1 2.3% 2.0%
Western Electricity Coordinating Council - California (CAMX) 13.5 13.6 13.7 1.1% 1.4%
Western Electricity Coordinating Council - Northwest Power Pool Area (NWPP) 6.9 7 7.1 2.2% 2.6%
Western Electricity Coordinating Council - Rockies (RMPA) 8.9 9 9.3 0.7% 3.5%
Contiguous U.S. 10.3 10.4 10.3 0.8% 0.01%
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Clean Power Plan Final Rule," October 23, 2015
A map of electricity market regions from the U.S. Energy Information Administration

Electricity prices

A November 2015 study was released by NERA Economic Consulting on behalf of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, a partnership of companies that use coal to generate electricity. The study's authors argued that the annual compliance cost of the Clean Power Plan to the industry would range from $29 billion to $39 billion between the years 2022 and 2033. In addition, the authors argued that the average electricity price in at least 40 states could increase 10 percent or more from 2022 to 2033. The full study can be accessed here.[24][61]

In November 2015, the National Mining Association (a national trade association representing the coal industry) and Energy Ventures Analysis released a study concluding that natural gas and electricity prices would increase if the Clean Power Plan were fully implemented. Specifically, the study's authors argued that the plan would result in a cumulative increase in wholesale electricity costs of $214 billion from the years 2022 to 2030. The full study can be accessed here.[62]

Electricity price projections from the EIA.
In cents per kilowatthour (2015)

In the U.S. Energy Information Administration's (EIA) Annual Energy Outlook for the year 2016 (published in June 2016), the agency contended that under then-current laws and regulations (which included the Clean Power Plan) electricity prices would be at least 3 percent higher if the plan were fully implemented. The EIA projected that electricity price increases would be the same whether states use a mass-based or rate-based approach to reduce CO2 emissions. According to the EIA, electricity prices would increase "as the fuel and capital costs of complying with the rule [Clean Power Plan] by shifting to natural gas-fired generation, or by building new renewable capacity, are passed through to retail prices" to electricity consumers.[63]

Impact on employment

In its October 2015 regulatory impact analysis, the EPA contended that the Clean Power Plan's full implementation would lead to a net decrease in approximately 31,000 jobs if states adopt a rate-based approach to reduce CO2 emissions. Further, the agency argued that the plan would lead to a net decrease of approximately 34,000 jobs under a mass-based approach. These net decreases would occur in the construction, operation, and maintenance of coal and natural gas-fired power plants. Likewise, the EPA contended that the plan would result in a net increase of between 52,000 and 83,000 jobs in the demand-side energy efficiency sector, which includes jobs to retrofit buildings and/or homes with energy efficiency measures to reduce electricity usage.[60]

Sam Batkins, director of regulatory policy at the American Action Forum, a conservative think tank that supports free market energy policies, argued that the EPA had exaggerated the number of jobs in the energy efficiency sector that would result from the Clean Power Plan. Specifically, Batkins argued that the finalized Clean Power Plan partially eliminated the fourth building block requiring increased demand-side energy efficiency measures in homes and buildings. The fourth block was part of the 2014 proposal of the Clean Power Plan that was not included in the finalized plan.[64]

In June 2014, the United Mine Workers of America (UMWA) president argued that up to 75,000 coal-related jobs could be eliminated by the year 2020 and 152,000 jobs eliminated by 2035. The UMVA president contended, "The proposed rule...will lead to long-term and irreversible job losses for thousands of coal miners, electrical workers, utility workers, boilermakers, railroad workers and others without achieving any significant reduction of global greenhouse gas emissions." Additionally, Democratic lawmakers and Democratic candidates for office in coal-driven states opposed the plan, including Alison Lundergan Grimes (D-Ky.), Natalie Tennant (D-W.Va.), and Nick Rahall (D-W.Va.).[65][66]

Note: To nominate another study for inclusion in the table above, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Reception

State stances

As of March 2017, 27 states opposed the Clean Power Plan and 26 joined lawsuits against the EPA (Nevada officially opposed the plan but did not join a lawsuit). 18 states filed legal briefs supportive of the EPA's position. The map below shows each state's stance; states in orange oppose the rule, states in teal support the rule, and states in gray had not joined a lawsuit as of March 2017. Idaho, Tennessee, Pennsylvania, and Alaska had not taken a stance on the plan as of March 2017. North Carolina withdrew from the lawsuit in February 2017.[5][67][8][68][69][70]


Notice an error? Email us: editor@ballotpedia.org.

Congress

Under the Congressional Review Act (CRA), Congress can repeal a federal agency rule within 60 states of the rule's publication in the Federal Register. The CRA requires a joint resolution approved by both houses of Congress and signed by the president. Additionally, the agency cannot issue a rule that is substantially similar to the rule rejected by Congress.[21]

Senate

In late 2015, Congress voted on two resolutions repealing the Clean Power Plan. In November 2015, the Senate approved a resolution by a vote of 52 to 46 to repeal the plan's provision mandating CO2 reductions at existing electric generating units. A second resolution to repeal CO2 reductions for new electric generating units passed by the same vote margin. The Senate held its vote under the CRA, which requires 51 votes.[71][72][73]

Three Democratic senators—Joe Donnelly (Ind.), Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.), and Joe Manchin (W.Va.)—joined a majority of Republicans to repeal the Clean Power Plan. Three Republican senators—Kelly Ayotte (N.H.), Susan Collins (Maine), and Mark Kirk (Ill.)—voted with the majority of Democrats against repealing the plan.[72]

House

In December 2015, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a resolution repealing the Clean Power Plan's provision mandating CO2 reductions from existing electric generating units by a vote of 242 to 180. In addition, the House passed a resolution repealing CO2 reductions for new electric generating units by a vote of 235 to 188.[74][75][76]

Four House Democrats voted with the majority of Republicans for the resolutions to repeal the plan: Reps. Brad Ashford (Neb.), Collin Peterson (Minn.), Sanford D. Bishop Jr. (Ga.), and Henry Cuellar (Texas).

Two House Republicans—Reps. Richard Hanna (N.Y.) and Bob Dold (Ill.)—voted against the resolution to repeal CO2 emissions standards for existing electric generating units. Ten House Republicans—Hanna, Dold, Ryan Costello (Pa.), Brian Fitzpatrick (Pa.), Carlos Curbelo (Fla.), Patrick Meehan (Pa.), Frank LoBiondo (N.J.), John Katko (N.Y.), Chris Gibson (N.Y.), and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (Fla.)—voted against the resolution to repeal CO2 emissions standards for new electric generating units.

On December 19, 2015, President Obama vetoed both resolutions.[77]

History

For an outline of the timeline and political debate related to the development and finalization of the Clean Power Plan, see this article.

See also

Footnotes

  1. ↑ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants," accessed, July 19, 2016
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 Harvard Law Review, "The Clean Power Plan," February 10, 2016
  3. ↑ The Obama White House, "Remarks by the President in Announcing the Clean Power Plan," August 3, 2015
  4. ↑ The Daily Beast, "EPA’s New Regulations to Cut Carbon Emissions Are Obamacare for the Air," June 2014
  5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 The Wall Street Journal, "Federal Court Denies States’ Request to Temporarily Block EPA Carbon Rules," September 9, 2015
  6. ↑ The Viewpoint, "12 States Sue EPA Over Proposed Power Plant Regulations," September 15, 2014
  7. ↑ Utility Dive, "Messing with Texas: Can the state block the EPA's Clean Power Plan?" May 15, 2015
  8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 New York Law Journal, "Legal Challenges to Obama Administration's Clean Power Plan," September 11, 2014
  9. ↑ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Ten Things to Know About the EPA's Clean Power Plan," accessed August 3, 2015
  10. ↑ 10.00 10.01 10.02 10.03 10.04 10.05 10.06 10.07 10.08 10.09 10.10 10.11 10.12 10.13 10.14 10.15 10.16 10.17 10.18 10.19 Federal Register, "40 CFR Part 60 Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units ," October 23, 2015
  11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 11.2 The Atlantic, "Federal Coercion and the EPA’s Clean Power Plan," May 17, 2015
  12. ↑ The Obama White House, "Remarks by the President in Announcing the Clean Power Plan," August 3, 2015
  13. ↑ Environmental Protection Agency, "EPA Takes Another Step To Advance President Trump's America First Strategy, Proposes Repeal Of 'Clean Power Plan'," October 10, 2017
  14. ↑ Politico, "Pruitt to sign Clean Power Plan repeal proposal Tuesday," October 9, 2017
  15. ↑ Utility Drive, "Inside the DC Circuit: What happened at the Clean Power Plan's court hearing," September 27, 2016
  16. ↑ The Hill, "Court suspends case over Obama climate rule," April 28, 2017
  17. ↑ The Hill, "Trump signs order to roll back Obama's climate moves," March 28, 2017
  18. ↑ Energy and Commerce Committee, "Subcommittee Examines Administration’s Climate Agenda," September 18, 2013
  19. ↑ Federal Register, "Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units," accessed September 22, 2014
  20. ↑ 20.00 20.01 20.02 20.03 20.04 20.05 20.06 20.07 20.08 20.09 20.10 20.11 20.12 20.13 20.14 20.15 Congressional Research Service, "EPA’s Clean Power Plan: Highlights of the Final Rule," August 14, 2015
  21. ↑ 21.00 21.01 21.02 21.03 21.04 21.05 21.06 21.07 21.08 21.09 21.10 21.11 21.12 21.13 21.14 21.15 21.16 21.17 21.18 Congressional Research Service, "EPA’s Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants: Frequently Asked Questions," June 15, 2016
  22. ↑ Resources for the Future, "2005 vs. 2012 in EPA's Proposal," June 4, 2014
  23. ↑ 23.00 23.01 23.02 23.03 23.04 23.05 23.06 23.07 23.08 23.09 23.10 U.S. Energy Information Administration, "Analysis of the Impacts of the Clean Power Plan," May 22, 2015
  24. ↑ 24.0 24.1 NERA Economic Consulting, "Potential Energy Impacts of the EPA Proposed Clean Power Plan," October 2014 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "NERA study" defined multiple times with different content
  25. ↑ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Evaluation Measurement and Verification (EM&V) Guidance for Demand-Side Energy Efficiency (EE)," August 3, 2015
  26. ↑ 26.0 26.1 U.S. Global Change Research Program, "Climate Change Impacts in the United States," May 2014
  27. ↑ Institute for Energy Research, "Comment on Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New Stationary Sources: Electric Generating Units," accessed April 6, 2017
  28. ↑ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Clean Power Plan Toolbox for States," accessed November 3, 2015
  29. ↑ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Clean Power Plan - Rule Summary," August 3, 2015
  30. ↑ GE Power Generation, "Combined Cycle Power Plant: How It Works," accessed September 20, 2016
  31. ↑ U.S. Energy Information Administration, "Average utilization for natural gas combined-cycle plants exceeded coal plants in 2015," April 4, 2016
  32. ↑ Note: The data used in the table are based on information reported to the EPA by the power plant facilities in each state. The EPA used this information to calculate statewide power plant-generated electricity for the purpose of setting each state's CO2 reduction targets under the CPP. As such, the data may conflict with information reported by other federal agencies, such as the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
  33. ↑ 33.0 33.1 The Heritage Foundation, "The Many Problems of the EPA’s Clean Power Plan and Climate Regulations: A Primer," July 7, 2015 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "Heritage overview" defined multiple times with different content
  34. ↑ Akin Group, "In First Step to Address Essential Reliability Services, FERC Launches Inquiry Into Provision and Compensation of Primary Frequency Response," accessed August 3, 2016
  35. ↑ North American Electric Reliability Corporation, "Potential Reliability Impacts of EPA’s Clean Power Plan Phase II," May 2016
  36. ↑ North American Electric Reliability Corporation, "Potential Reliability Impacts of EPA’s Proposed Clean Power Plan Initial Reliability Review," November 2014
  37. ↑ Utility Dive, "Why NERC thinks the EPA Clean Power Plan could threaten grid reliability," April 28, 2015
  38. ↑ Environmental Protection Agency, "Fact sheet: Clean Power Plan - Keeping energy affordable and reliable," accessed April 3, 2017
  39. ↑ Utility Drive, "Inside the DC Circuit: What happened at the Clean Power Plan's court hearing," September 27, 2016
  40. ↑ The Hill, "Court suspends case over Obama climate rule," April 28, 2017
  41. ↑ U.S. Senate Committee Environment and Public Works, "Text of the Clean Air Act," accessed April 4, 2017
  42. ↑ 42.00 42.01 42.02 42.03 42.04 42.05 42.06 42.07 42.08 42.09 42.10 42.11 42.12 Congressional Research Service, "Clean Power Plan: Legal Background and Pending Litigation in West Virginia v. EPA," March 8, 2017
  43. ↑ Massey & Gail LLP, "Comments of Lawrence H. Tribe and Peabody Energy Corporation," December 1, 2014
  44. ↑ The Wall Street Journal, "The Clean Power Plan Is Unconstitutional," December 22, 2014
  45. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "States move to block 'Clean Power Plan' (UPDATED)," January 26, 2016
  46. ↑ The Washington Times, "Supreme Court halts Obama carbon emissions rule," February 9, 2016
  47. ↑ Utility Drive, "Inside the DC Circuit: What happened at the Clean Power Plan's court hearing," September 27, 2016
  48. ↑ The Hill, "Court suspends case over Obama climate rule," April 28, 2017
  49. ↑ The White House, "Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866," February 2010
  50. ↑ The White House, "Technical Support Document: -Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis - Under Executive Order 12866," May 2013
  51. ↑ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "The Social Cost of Carbon," August 2, 2016
  52. ↑ The Heritage Foundation, "The State of Climate Science: No Justification for Extreme Policies," accessed April 4, 2017
  53. ↑ Stanford News, "Estimated social cost of climate change not accurate, Stanford scientists say," January 12, 2015
  54. ↑ The Daily Caller, "Experts Debunk Obama’s ‘Social Cost Of Carbon’ Estimate — It Might Be Negative!" June 7, 2016
  55. ↑ Reason Foundation, "Assessing the Social Costs and Benefits of Regulating Carbon Emissions," August 2015
  56. ↑ Cato Institute, "0.02°C Temperature Rise Averted: The Vital Number Missing from the EPA’s 'By the Numbers' Fact Sheet," June 11, 2014
  57. ↑ Cato Institute, "The Trouble with Obama's Clean Power Plan," August 4, 2015
  58. ↑ Current Wisdom: We Calculate, You Decide: A Handy-Dandy Carbon Tax Temperature-Savings Calculator," June 23, 2013
  59. ↑ The data above are summaries of studies on the Clean Power Plan. To nominate another study for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org.
  60. ↑ 60.0 60.1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Clean Power Plan," August 2015
  61. ↑ National Center for Policy Analysis, "New NERA Study Details Economic Impact of Clean Power Plan," November 18, 2015
  62. ↑ Energy Ventures Analysis, "Clean Power Plan Impact Analysis," accessed April 4, 2017
  63. ↑ Energy Information Administration, "Effects of the Clean Power Plan," June 20, 2016
  64. ↑ American Action Forum, "EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Regulation Expects Coal Generation to Decline 48 Percent," August 4, 2015
  65. ↑ Fox News, "Unions slam Obama EPA rule," June 3, 2014
  66. ↑ The New York Times, "Democrats in Coal Country Run From E.P.A.," June 2, 2014
  67. ↑ United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, "USCA Case #15-1277," August 13, 2015
  68. ↑ The Viewpoint, "12 States Sue EPA Over Proposed Power Plant Regulations," September 15, 2014
  69. ↑ Oklahoma Attorney General, "Comment from the Attorneys General of the States of Oklahoma, West Virginia, Nebraska, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming on Proposed EPA Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units," accessed May 19, 2015
  70. ↑ Utility Dive, "Comments are in on the EPA's Clean Power Plan," December 2, 2014
  71. ↑ Washington Examiner, "Senate deals a blow to Obama climate rules," November 17, 2015
  72. ↑ 72.0 72.1 The Hill, "Senate votes to strike down Obama’s climate rules," November 17, 2015
  73. ↑ The New York Times, "Senate Votes to Block Obama’s Climate Change Rules," November 17, 2015
  74. ↑ U.S. House Clerk, "Vote Results for S.J. Resolution 23," accessed December 3, 2015
  75. ↑ U.S. House Clerk, "Vote Results for S.J. Resolution 24," accessed December 3, 2015
  76. ↑ Think Progress, "The House Just Voted To Kill A Plan That Most Americans Support," December 2, 2015
  77. ↑ USA Today, "Using pocket vetoes, Obama rebuffs GOP attempt to kill Clean Power Plan," December 19, 2015
Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Clean_Power_Plan&oldid=8712666"