The CPP was projected to move the energy sector away from coal-fired power plants and toward more natural gas-fired power plants, as well as wind and solar power sources resulting in a reduction in greenhouse gases. Many of the states will meet the goals that were set in the Clean Power Plan. However 12 states will most likely not meet the CPP standards. The repeal of the CPP is unfortunate for two additional reasons: 1) The plan is estimated to have prevented 1,900 to 4,500 premature deaths per year by 2030. Secondly it causes the public to doubt policy analysis. There is widespread support within the economic community for the assumptions on discounting and on global benefits made by the Obama Administration. The Trump analysis underestimates its benefits. Without the support of much of the economics profession, the Trump Administration is setting back the cause of cost-benefit analysis.The Trump Administration’s changes to the assumptions in the Obama Administration’s analysis have negative impacts for the debate over the use of cost-benefit analysis. The Trump Administration’s reversal erodes the public’s faith in any numbers that come from the government. That faith has already taken a blow this year with the repeated Republican attacks on the Congressional Budget Office over its estimates of the effects of a repeal of the Affordable Care Act. The analysis underlying the repeal of the Clean Power Plan undermines public confidence in analysis in another, more profound, way. If analytical results can change so dramatically merely based on who is in the White House, why should the public or policymakers give any respect to analysis at all?
The EPA is not required to change its direction based on comments, but a large volume of comments asking that the Rule not be repealed demonstrates that the EPA is acting against public interest.
Link to comment on this proposed repeal https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0355-0002