EPA takes first step toward replacing Obama-era CO2 rule

The Environmental Protection Agency on Monday kicked off a process to replace the highly controversial Clean Power Plan, an Obama-era regulation designed to limit carbon emissions from power plants.

The agency, which earlier this year began the formal process of repealing the regulation, said it will begin accepting public comments on a possible replacement.

The action seems to provide the answer as to whether EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt would offer up anything in place of the Clean Power Plan, something legal scholars have said he’d be forced to do in light of Supreme Court rulings that say the federal government must address carbon pollution in some way.

“Today’s move ensures adequate and early opportunity for public comment from all stakeholders about next steps the agency might take to limit greenhouse gases from stationary sources, in a way that properly stays within the law, and the bounds of the authority provided to EPA by Congress,” Mr. Pruitt said in a statement.

The Clean Power Plan, a key environmental legacy item for former President Obama and one that formed the backbone of the U.S. commitment under the Paris climate accord, called for a 32-percent reduction in carbon emissions from the power-generation sector by 2030. Such a drastic cut would be possible only by phasing out many of the nation’s coal-fired power plants.

Immediately after coming to power, Mr. Pruitt began dismantling the rule, arguing it far exceeded EPA’s legal authority. Until Monday, it was unclear whether he’d replace it with a more flexible regulation.

Doing nothing, specialists have argued, would have invited significant legal trouble, as courts have said the government has a duty to address carbon pollution under the federal Clean Air Act.

Still, environmental groups say Monday’s action is little more than a sham and that Mr. Pruitt’s move doesn’t guarantee he’ll actually offer a replacement. Instead, the agency’s request for public comment, critics say, is a stalling tactic.

Read more at Washington Times

Comments (5)

  • Avatar

    Spurwing Plover

    |

    The trouble with the liberal Demac-Rats is they think we need more regulations and bigger goverment and the Useless Nations to supervise how we live

  • Avatar

    4TimesAYear

    |

    A replacement? Why a “replacement”?

  • Avatar

    4TimesAYear

    |

    “Doing nothing, specialists have argued, would have invited significant legal trouble, as courts have said the government has a duty to address carbon pollution under the federal Clean Air Act”
    No, because CO2 is not a pollutant – it’s not “carbon pollution”. The Clean Air Act says nothing about CO2. It says nothing about controlling CO2 emissions or controlling the climate.

    • Avatar

      RKooi

      |

      CO2 Kills
      CO2 has been found to be a pollutant in many courts, including the Supreme Court.
      CO2 Kills…What a surprise.
      I thought folks like you said it was the Gas of Life?
      ***
      “Police: Carbon dioxide led to death in McDonald’s bathroom
      September 14, 2011 1:38 p.m. EDT
      STORY HIGHLIGHTS
      The carbon dioxide built up to toxic levels in the bathroom
      An 80-year-old woman died after the incident September 7
      lethal dose of carbon dioxide, authorities said Wednesday….”
      ***
      “What is the LD50 value of carbon dioxide?
      The LC50 (Lethal Concentration which kills 50% of the exposed animals in 1 hour)
      is 4% for rats and 10% for humans.
      CO2 is heavier than air,
      so the concentration near the floor will be much higher,”
      as well as protected glades, basements and sealed rooms.
      Higher Concentrations of CO2 in the Atmosphere increases incidents of
      threatening concentrations at ground levels and basements.
      ***
      “One person, recounting the fate of eight men and one woman who walked
      into a basement area where the gas had accumulated, said they “fell down DEAD
      as if they had been shot.”
      ***

  • Avatar

    Charles Higley

    |

    It makes perfect sense. Under Obama, the EPA hid the comment periods so that citizens had little or no time to comment on proposed new rules. But, if Trump’s EPA has an honest public comment period, it’s a stalling tactic. Yeah, right!

Comments are closed