En Español



Very usefull links



PW
Bookstore





News links

AP

AFP

Aljazeera

Dow Jones

Oil price

Reuters

Bloomberg

Views and News
from
Norway

 

 

 

 

U.S. formally proposes scrapping Obama's greenhouse gas emissions carbon-cutting plan

 

 

 

 

By Timothy Gardner and Emily Flitter

WASHINGTON/NEW YORK
Petroleumworld 11 09 2017

The head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency formally proposed on Tuesday to scrap the agency's Obama-era plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, as the Trump administration seeks to slash fossil fuel regulation.

EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt issued a notice that the agency intended to repeal the Clean Power Plan, which it said relied on controversial calculations of economic costs and benefits.

The agency said it is “committed to righting the wrongs of the Obama administration by cleaning the regulatory slate.”

The EPA is obliged to regulate carbon emissions after it found in 2009 that pollution caused by such emissions endangers human health.

But it left open the question of when a new plan would emerge. “Any replacement rule will be done carefully, properly, and with humility, by listening to all those affected by the rule,” said the EPA.

Pruitt said on Monday in Kentucky that he would sign the repeal proposal, but the EPA unveiled the notice in a press release on Tuesday with little fanfare.

Ending the plan could save up to $33 billion in compliance costs in coming years, it said.

The move is part of Republican President Donald Trump's plan to revive the coal industry and boost domestic fossil fuel output. His administration has promised to reduce regulations on coal and drilling, which tend to be in states that form part of Trump's voter base.

But environmentalists and other supporters of the plan said Pruitt's cost estimates “cooked the book” and did not fully consider billions of dollars in savings from reduced medical bills that would result from steep cuts in pollution from coal.

The estimate also did not fully consider the future damage done from carbon emissions and the costs of U.S. carbon pollution abroad, critics say.

The EPA did not issue a timeline on replacing the plan, only saying it would issue a rule in the “near future.”

The ambiguity could delay fresh investment in electricity generation, an industry rife with aging plants, analysts said.

“This doesn't help steady the waters at all with regards to where the next billion dollars should be spent” by power companies, said John Larsen, a director at economic research consultancy the Rhodium Group.

ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES

The Clean Power Plan was finalized in 2015 but never came into effect. Last year, the Supreme Court put the brakes on it after energy-producing states complained the EPA had exceeded its legal reach.

The plan had sought to reduce emissions from power plants by 32 percent below 2005 levels by 2030.

Pruitt said the plan went beyond the law by forcing plants to take action to cut emissions not just at the plants but also “outside the fence line” - for instance, by investing in renewable energy.

Electricity generators have pressured the Trump administration to not simply kill the plan but to form an alternative strategy, so they can avoid any future lawsuits for not taking action on emissions.

An alternative plan could require plants to make boilers more efficient, for instance, but that could result in fewer overall emissions reductions, environmentalists say.

Republicans praised Pruitt's move. Senator John Barrasso, chairman of the Senate's environment committee, said the Clean Power Plan would have hurt energy workers in his state of Wyoming, the country's top coal producer.

David Doniger, a lawyer at non-profit environmental group the Natural Resources Defense Council, said it would put Americans in greater danger from extreme weather and particulate pollution from coal plants, linked to heart and lung problems.

Doniger said Tuesday's action would trigger a legal battle, and promised to take “Pruitt and his Dirty Power Plan to court.”



Story by Timothy Gardner and Emily Flitter ; Editing by Rosalba O'Brienfrom Reuters.

reuters.com 10 10 2017

We invite all our readers to share with us
their views and comments about this article.
Write to editor@petroleumworld.com

By using this link, you agree to allow PW
to publish your comments on our letters page.

Any question or suggestions,
please write to: editor@petroleumworld.com

Best Viewed with IE 5.01+ Windows NT 4.0, '95,
'98,ME,XP, Vista, Windows 7,8,10 +/ 800x600 pixels

Nov 13-14 ;
Mexico City, Mexico

 

 

 

TOP

Contact: editor@petroleumworld.com,

Editor & Publisher:Elio Ohep/
Contact Email: editor@petroleumworld.com

CopyRight © 1999-2016, Paul Ohep F. - All Rights Reserved. Legal Information

PW in Top 100 Energy Sites

CopyRight©1999-2017, Petroleumworld ™  / Elio Ohep - All rights reservedThis site is a public free site and it contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner.We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of business, environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have chosen to view the included information for research, information, and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission fromPetroleumworld or the copyright owner of the material.