Comment on proposed repeal of EPA Rule regarding Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources

Comment on proposed repeal of EPA Rule regarding Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units (EGUs), commonly referred to as the Clean Power Plan (CPP)

Comment period is now through December 15, 2017

In this action, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to repeal the Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units (EGUs), commonly referred to as the Clean Power Plan (CPP), as promulgated on October 23, 2015.

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is not required to change its direction based on comments, but a large volume of comments asking that the Rule not be repealed demonstrates that the EPA is acting against public interest.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

One comment on “Comment on proposed repeal of EPA Rule regarding Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources

  1. Kathy Svendsen says:

    If this administration’s EPA representatives change the Clean Power Plan, they will be acting in opposition to the agency’s main purpose, that of protecting the environment and the people of this country. What kind of people have we in charge who either don’t understand or don’t care that climate change is seriously affected by the use of fossil fuels? We cannot afford the price of cleaning up after worsening storms. To stay in the forefront of technology, our power generation needs to be modernized with renewable sources of energy, just as China and India are doing. Please do the intelligent thing and reconsider rolling back those guidelines.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *