It sets state-by-state targets for reducing carbon emissions with flexible outlines for how they could be achieved, such as investment in renewable energy. The companies, which include Apple, Bank of America, Coca-Cola, Walmart, and General Motors, also pledged to cut emissions as much as 50 percent, reduce water usage as much as 15 percent, purchase 100 percent renewable energy and pursue zero net deforestation in supply chains. Shortly after it was announced, a dozen states and Murray Energy, the country’s largest privately held coal mining company, challenged it in federal court.
Advertisement
Their chances for success are slim, however, as the majority of Americans understand the importance of taking meaningful action to combat climate change.
The Clean Power Plan, which is the first nationwide regulation of existing power plants, has not taken effect yet, but it has already inspired vastly different responses from various states.
[Some states see easier road to meeting carbon-cutting goals.]. The proposal is the signature piece of President Barack Obama’s climate change policy. “They are crucial to addressing the problem of climate change”. The effort is expected to culminate in December with talks on a proposed worldwide treaty curbing global carbon emissions. “We limit the amount of toxic chemicals like mercury, sulfur, and arsenic that power plants put in our air and water”.
[Pope Francis takes on climate skeptics with encyclical.].
Secondly, the EPA devised a system that has been mocked by both nuclear advocates and foes for keeping afloat power plants at risk of shutting down due to economics.
“Our support is firmly grounded in economic reality”, wrote the businesses, including industry giants such as Ben & Jerry’s, Clif Bar, EILEEN FISHER, Mars, Nestlé,Unilever and VF Corporation, all of which have been vocal in their support of the Clean Power Plan since its public comment period in 2014.
Many are well on course to hit targets as a shale gas revolution has spurred coal-to-natural gas switching, while renewable costs have have dramatically fallen.
“The study concluded that coordinating individual state plans in a regional market where energy flows without respect to state boundaries and benefits are shared regionally will be extremely challenging and risky for states”, SPP said.
The EPA estimates that the plan would reduce emissions from the electricity sector to 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. But a longer timeframe allows energy efficiency, renewables and emission trading between states to all be used and result in a bigger carbon saving.
A White House fact sheet said the intention was to encourage states to speed up the transition. Opponents warned that the regulation would devastate the coal industry and force utility companies to raise electricity rates, slowing the economic recovery and hurting consumers, especially the poor.
The letter, from sustainability group Ceres, went to 29 governors. Political opposition in states that produce coal is likely to lead to legal challenges. “It’s been proven as the easiest, fastest and cheapest way to reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions from power plants”. There are other ways of doing even better, such as a more ambitious deployment of energy efficiency.
Thomsen said the state stands to gain from the benchmarks because they will prod other states to buy more geothermal and solar power from Nevada.
Because of these inducements, the percentage of U.S. electricity coming from renewables is expected to rise to 28percent by the year 2030, compared with 22percent under the previous version of the rule, the officials said.
Advertisement
Oklahoma has shown its willingness to develop clean energy, with over 12 percent of the state’s electricity generated by wind power, but the administration fears excessive federal control over the state’s energy economy.
