New EPA rules look to cut carbon emissions 30 percent by 2030

posted at 1:21 pm on June 2, 2014 by Erika Johnsen

In what enthusiastic progressives are heralding as “one of the boldest acts of his presidency,” environmentalist groups are hailing as “the centerpiece of President Obama’s Climate Action Plan,” embattled red-state Democrats are warning are “disastrous new rules,” and industry representatives are branding a clear move “designed to materially damage the ability of conventional energy sources to provide reliable and affordable power,” the Obama administration has finally revealed the emissions regulations on existing power plants for which they have long been prepping. Via the AP:

The 645-page rule, expected to be finalized next year, is a centerpiece of Obama’s plans to tackle climate change and aims to give the United States more leverage to prod other countries to act when negotiations on a new international treaty resume next year. Under the plan, carbon emissions would be reduced 30 percent by 2030, compared to 2005 levels, putting in motion one of the most significant U.S. actions on global warming.

The proposal sets off a complex regulatory process, steeped in politics, in which the 50 states will each determine how to meet customized targets set by the Environmental Protection Agency, then submit those plans for approval.

“The glue that holds this plan together — and the key to making it work — is that each state’s goal is tailored to its own circumstances, and states have the flexibility to reach their goal in whatever works best for them,” EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said as she formally announced the proposal.

The regulations are going to require individual emissions-cutting plans from each state to add up to a national 30 percent reduction, with different state-specific requirements based on how much electricity they get from coal and how much they have already done to reduce their emissions in recent years. The Obama administration doesn’t want to seem like it’s unfairly coming down too hard on state economies that happen to rely more on coal for their electricity needs (West Virginia, for instance, is going to get walloped, with 95 percent of their electricity currently coming from coal, while Idaho actually gets most of its electricity from hydroelectric power and exactly none of it from coal), and in that vein, the EPA claims that the regulations will offer plenty of “flexibility” for states to adjust to the changes:

Many states that rely heavily on coal will be spared from cutting a full 30 percent. West Virginia, for example, must cut 23 percent by 2030 compared to what the state was emitting in 2012. Ohio’s target is 28 percent, while Kentucky and Wyoming will have to find ways to make an 18 percent and 19 percent cut.

On the other extreme, New York has a 44 percent target, EPA figures show. New York has already joined with other Northeast states to curb carbon dioxide from power plants, reducing the baseline figure from which cuts must be made. But states like New York can get credit for actions they’ve already taken, lest they be punished for taking early action on climate change.

The fact that they chose 2005 as a baseline is also meant to be a mitigating factor, since our natural-gas boom along with increased fuel efficiency have already taken us part of the way there. Nevertheless, President Obama wants the EPA to finalize the rules by June 2015, and states are supposed to start submitting their implementation plans by June 2016 (with room to push their deadlines into 2018, depending on how they choose to approach the regulations) so that the rule can start having an impact before he leaves office — in theory. The legal challenges from states with a larger proportion of older coal plants are going to come hard and fast, not to mention some staunch lobbying efforts and less-than-uniform support from put-upon Democrats.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

rules look to cut carbon emissions

Rules cut emissions? Why not cut it to zero? Why does Obama hate the Earth?

faraway on June 2, 2014 at 1:23 PM

Rules cut emissions? Why not cut it to zero? Why does Obama hate the Earth?

faraway on June 2, 2014 at 1:23 PM

That was funny.:-)

coolrepublica on June 2, 2014 at 1:25 PM

Same for the EPA/Jobs

The Left hate work.

“Non-workers, unite” is their new slogan.

Schadenfreude on June 2, 2014 at 1:25 PM

2008: Communism won in America. I think it’s really that simple.

This is nothing more than wealth distribution. In the end, the pockets will be increased, so we can free services to the 65% (that will be my guess in 15 years).

Oil Can on June 2, 2014 at 1:25 PM

Subscribe to Off Grid now!

hillsoftx on June 2, 2014 at 1:26 PM

New EPA rules look to cut carbon emissions 30 percent by 2030

Alternate headline:

New EPA rules ensure conservative majority in Congress

BobMbx on June 2, 2014 at 1:27 PM

The proposal sets off a complex regulatory process, steeped in politics, in which the 50 states will each determine how to meet customized targets set by the Environmental Protection Agency, then submit those plans for approval.

So the states are now subordinate to the EPA?

Charlemagne on June 2, 2014 at 1:27 PM

EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy is a total ideologue. She is going to remake America in her image. Go to youtube and look at the speeches she has given. These people in this regime are not regular Americans. They are enemies of free people.

Murphy9 on June 2, 2014 at 1:29 PM

…how amusing!

KOOLAID2 on June 2, 2014 at 1:30 PM

Anyone remember the “Big Freeze” and “Polar Vortex” last winter…?

… All of those coal fired power plants were running at 100% capacity to keep millions of Americans from freezing to death.

What is going to happen when they are shut down and nothing is allowed to take their place…?

Seven Percent Solution on June 2, 2014 at 1:32 PM

Anyone remember the “Big Freeze” and “Polar Vortex” last winter…?

… All of those coal fired power plants were running at 100% capacity to keep millions of Americans from freezing to death.

What is going to happen when they are shut down and nothing is allowed to take their place…?

Seven Percent Solution on June 2, 2014 at 1:32 PM

Humans die, and that is what these ideologues want. Their driving desire is to relieve the burden the planet has to carry of all these humans, especially ,the ones who think they can just do as they please.

Murphy9 on June 2, 2014 at 1:34 PM

So we’re moving to clean nuclear power? Does that mean openin Yucca Mountain? Dingy Harry isn’t going to like that.

rbj on June 2, 2014 at 1:34 PM

Seven Percent Solution on June 2, 2014 at 1:32 PM

…coldpubichair will find it humorless?

KOOLAID2 on June 2, 2014 at 1:35 PM

the rule can start having an impact before he leaves office

No it won’t. King Barack will put off anything than endangers Democratic pols.

Let the next sucker in the Oval Office deal with it.

GarandFan on June 2, 2014 at 1:35 PM

Meanwhile, the spineless Republicans in the House sit back and let Obama run rough shod over the country.

cajunpatriot on June 2, 2014 at 1:35 PM

Hopefully this goes pfffft.

22044 on June 2, 2014 at 1:37 PM

Now we know why most 3rd World Banana Republics are in the tropics…

… When millions start to freeze to death next winter, those in power will no doubt be vacationing in Hawaii.

Seven Percent Solution on June 2, 2014 at 1:40 PM

So we’re moving to clean nuclear power? Does that mean openin Yucca Mountain? Dingy Harry isn’t going to like that.

rbj on June 2, 2014 at 1:34 PM

That’s the best evidence that they just aren’t serious about “climate change”. If they were they would be loosening the regulatory burdens facing nuclear plants. There should be multiple new nuclear plants being constructed in every state right now.

lowandslow on June 2, 2014 at 1:40 PM

New EPA rules look to cut carbon emissions jobs by 30 percent by 2030

Alternate Headline…

PatriotRider on June 2, 2014 at 1:40 PM

Meanwhile, the spineless Republicans in the House sit back and let Obama run rough shod over the country.

cajunpatriot on June 2, 2014 at 1:35 PM

If only the Founders thought of a way to separate powers, you know, like controlling the money so run away bureaucracies could be defunded…

… Oh, wait!

Seven Percent Solution on June 2, 2014 at 1:42 PM

Who elected this person, Gina McCarthy, making laws that must be followed? Every single line of regulation that these unelected a$$whiles write has a cost of compliance. The power companies don’t bear that price, it is filtered down to the RATE PAYER, which is YOU AND ME.

All of this removed discretionary spending from the economy, as we are all going to be spending more and more on just STAYING ALIVE.

Hope and Change.

Murphy9 on June 2, 2014 at 1:43 PM

Barky nature seems to be saying F$@# you with a significant tornado outbreak on Tuesday.

sorrowen on June 2, 2014 at 1:46 PM

What the heck is the stated goal in cutting carbon emissions? Is the reduction in carbon emissions linked to the goal?

I believe the unstated goal is to impoverish the US and to reduce it to “rest of the world” status.

freedomfirst on June 2, 2014 at 1:46 PM

Obama/EPA to the middle class….F— You…

PatriotRider on June 2, 2014 at 1:48 PM

Fossil fuels are naturally occuring and CO2 does not change the climate it feeds plants..

sorrowen on June 2, 2014 at 1:49 PM

645 pages…

That right there tells me everything I need to know…

PatriotRider on June 2, 2014 at 1:50 PM

I despise this lying,egotistical,narcissistic punk so much now. He does not know shit about weather nor climate

sorrowen on June 2, 2014 at 1:52 PM

…and who were the people that “affirmed” her?…nice fight they put up!

KOOLAID2 on June 2, 2014 at 1:54 PM

Science is settled my ass…he wouldn’t know science if it bite him in the ass.

sorrowen on June 2, 2014 at 1:56 PM

S K Y R O C K E T !!!!!!1!!!!

kooly on June 2, 2014 at 1:56 PM

Climate change is a naturally occurring fact of nature.

It is good for plants and animals.

It is good for the Earth.

MichaelGabriel on June 2, 2014 at 1:56 PM

The Administration is playing power politics with the states, just as it has done with the electorate – divide and conquer. Republicans are every kind of negative ‘ism’ under the sun, white males have been demonized to Progressive Hell and, now, they are trying to create a new War Between the States. Oh, goody…

vnvet on June 2, 2014 at 1:58 PM

Abolish the EPA!

God Bless Texas & the rest of the Fracknation States.

workingclass artist on June 2, 2014 at 1:59 PM

EPA = Energy Prevention Agency or Employment Prevention Agency

22044 on June 2, 2014 at 2:01 PM

Garbage in garbage out operation for.

gwhh on June 2, 2014 at 2:02 PM

New EPA rules look to cut carbon emissions 30 percent by 2030

New House legislation looks to cut EPA funding by 30% by 2016.

Well, I can dream can’t I?

BacaDog on June 2, 2014 at 2:03 PM

“Under my policies, energy prices will necessarily skyrocket.”

Those are possibly the only honest words that have ever emitted from the stuttering piehole of our Glorious Leader.

Cicero43 on June 2, 2014 at 2:04 PM

New EPA rules look to cut carbon emissions 30 percent by 2030

The zero administration’s being grounded, starting with AF-1? Goody!

Newtie and the Beauty on June 2, 2014 at 2:05 PM

Plants and animals depend upon climate variability for adaptation and survival.

Mankinds’ attempt to force the climate into a steady state is bad for the environment and a fools errand.

MichaelGabriel on June 2, 2014 at 2:14 PM

Again, if no one is going to do anything to stop them, they’re going to do what ever the F they want.

Meople on June 2, 2014 at 2:16 PM

Neil Tyson deGrasse and Michio Kaku are in full agreement with teh One.

freedomfirst on June 2, 2014 at 2:16 PM

The fact that they chose 2005 as a baseline is also meant to be a mitigating factor, since our natural-gas boom along with increased fuel efficiency have already taken us part of the way there.

Translation: the private sector has already done over 40% of the work, so we’ll use this as a baseline to make our number look bigger, and thus justify 645 pages of new regulation.

Makes me think maybe we should make cabinet secretaries enact legislation not by signature, but by writing out the new regulation by hand. The foolish optimist in me thinks this might give them pause to consider what rules are important enough to spend the time and energy writing them down.

The Schaef on June 2, 2014 at 2:19 PM

Have any Rebub 2016 hopefuls talked about dismantling EPA authority yet? Or cancelling EO’s made by Obeavis?

NOMOBO on June 2, 2014 at 2:20 PM

Guess Obama really wants that 100M carrot from Tom Steyer.

Seriously, I know the GOP can’t help but step on their own D’s, but how do these freaks win any elections? They’re going to save the planet?!? It took them several months to fix a goddamn website.

This is going to crush the economy, particularly the poor and middle class and make no difference on Earth’s temperatures – whether or not China, India, Russia and the whole third world come along, which they never will anyway. Putin has to be laughing his as$ off at what a pu$sified chump this country reelected.

crrr6 on June 2, 2014 at 2:24 PM

Can we just do what the Obama administration does,… ignore the law?

Tater Salad on June 2, 2014 at 2:31 PM

Shut down the vehicles of all fed agencys except military,ground all fed aircraft except military, stop all executive branch travel. There, pollution stopped.

tim c on June 2, 2014 at 2:38 PM

Can we just do what the Obama administration does,… ignore the law?

Tater Salad on June 2, 2014 at 2:31 PM

No, see the Talibama Regime decides who can and cannot ignore the law and it varies as to whether you’re a good leftist or not. Ask Dinesh D’Sousa how that worked out for him.

Meople on June 2, 2014 at 2:40 PM

So, is WV power the juice generated in that state? Or the juice used in that state? Because West Virginia and Ohio generate a ton of electricity that is used by other states.

hawksruleva on June 2, 2014 at 2:50 PM

Plants and animals depend upon climate variability for adaptation and survival.

Mankinds’ attempt to force the climate into a steady state is bad for the environment and a fools errand.

MichaelGabriel on June 2, 2014 at 2:14 PM

And the activists like to claim “the Earth” is in peril. But really, the planet will be just fine, regardless of what we do. If humans really did pollute itself into extinction, other species would have a lot of fun in the ruins we left.

hawksruleva on June 2, 2014 at 2:53 PM

The fact that they chose 2005 as a baseline is also meant to be a mitigating factor, since our natural-gas boom along with increased fuel efficiency have already taken us part of the way there.

Reduced employment with less manufacturing also helped lower emissions. If nobody worked, we’d save a lot of carbon emissions.

Smokestacks used to be a sign of strength. And in parts of the world, they still are.

hawksruleva on June 2, 2014 at 2:54 PM

Not to worry. Everything Obama does turns to sh*t.

albill on June 2, 2014 at 3:03 PM

By the way, how exactly can Talibama and his Regime get away with using the whole “we don’t leave Americans behind” argument?

They left Americans behind and completely abandoned them in Benghazi.

They are letting a Marine sit in prison for no reason at all in Mexico. How is that “leaving no American behind”?

Meople on June 2, 2014 at 3:04 PM

Meople on June 2, 2014 at 3:04 PM

Damn, sorry, wrong thread. :(

Meople on June 2, 2014 at 3:06 PM

aims to give the United States more leverage to prod other countries to act when negotiations on a new international treaty resume next year.

Does anyone honestly believe that China and India are going to cheerfully commit economic suicide? All either country has to do is look at Spain and see what “going green” really entails.

catsandbooks on June 2, 2014 at 3:22 PM

Well sure it’ll cost a ton, and the poor and middle class will suffer, and the economy will go back into recession… but it’s worth it.

We’re cutting 30% of the emissions of power plants…

Which are 34-38% of US emissions
http://www.c2es.org/facts-figures/us-emissions/sector

Which is 17% of global emissions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

100 * .17 * .34 * .30 = 1.7%

So we’ll cripple the US economy to solve 1.7% of the problem…

Oh wait, I forgot something:
http://www.energytrendsinsider.com/2011/10/10/why-the-debate-over-global-warming-is-academic/

We’ve already been cutting our emissions drastically, but Asia-PAC has taken up the slack and then some; so cuts for us won’t actually solve anything… that increase will overshadow any changes we make.

So we’ll have a net loss, and economic problems; and gain nothing regarding CO2 output.

But at least we’ll know we’re “doing something”a bout the economy, as we dive headfirst into our next recession and damage the poor and middle class further.

That’s good enough, right?

gekkobear on June 2, 2014 at 3:38 PM

The energy version of ChoomCare.

Or the stimulus.

Or SmartDiplomacy.

formwiz on June 2, 2014 at 3:45 PM

Have to pass it to see what’s in it????

This should really help the summer of recovery. LOL

Bets on GDP growth for rest of year??

-5%

-7%

Can you say recession with a capital R?

But at least with an ice age coming and less CO2 in the air, crop yields should explode. NOT

txdoc on June 2, 2014 at 3:48 PM

Can you say recession with a capital R?

But at least with an ice age coming and less CO2 in the air, crop yields should explode. NOT

txdoc on June 2, 2014 at 3:48 PM

Recession? No compadre we in the Greatest Depression.

And it is 100% the choice of the democrats.

Murphy9 on June 2, 2014 at 4:03 PM

Anyone remember the “Big Freeze” and “Polar Vortex” last winter…?

… All of those coal fired power plants were running at 100% capacity to keep millions of Americans from freezing to death.

What is going to happen when they are shut down and nothing is allowed to take their place…?

Seven Percent Solution on June 2, 2014 at 1:32 PM

If people freeze to death, that prevents global warming, and will give polar bears a bigger skating rink. Ain’t that great?

Steve Z on June 2, 2014 at 4:12 PM

Does he just want to hand the GOP the senate?

sorrowen on June 2, 2014 at 4:24 PM

Grampa & Gramma shall freeze to death, sure, but really aren’t they now Takers anyway?

Captain Nemo got it, now it’s our turn:
Old & white = bad.
Illegal & brown = good.

Tard on June 2, 2014 at 4:26 PM

The 645-page rule, expected to be finalized next year, is a centerpiece of Obama’s plans to tackle climate change and aims to give the United States more leverage to prod other countries to act when negotiations on a new international treaty resume next year.

Of course they don’t try to finalize it THIS year, because they don’t want voters feeling the effects before the midterms. Just like Obamacare–in 2012, ain’t it great that we gave you free health insurance, in 2013, oops it only hurts 5% of the population, but it’s the law of the land.

The idea of the United States having “leverage” to prod other countries to act is pure B.S. The two biggest emitters of CO2 are China and India. Each has more than four times our population; both have nuclear weapons; and China owns most of our national debt. They will do as they please, regardless of what we do.

The world leader who best uses “leverage” is Vladimir Putin. You don’t like us, ve keep our gas!

The U.S. needs to imitate Putin–sell more gas to our friends, and nothing to our enemies. But Obama hasn’t figured out the First Law of Leverage–don’t push on the short end of the stick!

Steve Z on June 2, 2014 at 4:29 PM

I’ll just say Obama is illogical and stupid seeing as he thinks man can change the climate.

sorrowen on June 2, 2014 at 4:46 PM

Small point here: Isn’t it illegal for the EPA to write law? Don’t we have a Constitution anymore?
Why isn’t anyone taking this POS affirmative action case to court?

V7_Sport on June 2, 2014 at 4:55 PM

CO2 Isnt’ Dirt! That’s Science!

jaydee_007 on June 2, 2014 at 5:57 PM

CO2 Isn’t Dirt!
That’s Science.

(We Need An EDIT Function)

jaydee_007 on June 2, 2014 at 5:57 PM

No, we don’t have a Constitution anymore.

tngmv on June 2, 2014 at 6:08 PM

The EPA can’t write law if he wants to just hand the GOP the senate let him.

sorrowen on June 2, 2014 at 6:19 PM

Dear Leader: My plan is working…

d1carter on June 2, 2014 at 6:54 PM

“Environmental justice”…..?

d1carter on June 2, 2014 at 6:55 PM

A lot of the coal powered plant provide electricity to the northeastern states…. let them freeze to death in the dark. They voted for this jackazz let them suffer.

roux on June 2, 2014 at 8:57 PM

Secession can’t happen fast enough for my tastes.

Theophile on June 3, 2014 at 1:29 AM

Steve Z on June 2, 2014 at 4:29 PM

Nah – they will feel this now. Indiana is already announcing they will not comply – I expect any other red state with an aspiring national politician will be right behind, like say South Carolina, Louisiana and Wisconsin.

Zomcon JEM on June 3, 2014 at 8:20 AM

Tolstoy recounted after the Napoleonic defeat Russian nobility adopted French fashion and political views long after the victory for Russia. Mongols and China, Rome and Greece the same pattern.

We defeated the Soviets and now we emulate them. This is basically a Stalin 5 year plan, all based on left-wing academic “science” (junk science) and 60′s Earth Day nostalgia movement of the mob. More Orwellian touches then you can count.

cwon14 on June 3, 2014 at 2:21 PM