President Trump?s Environmental Protection Agency has pulled the plug on the Obama-era Clean Power Plan, which called for power plants in every state to reduced carbon dioxide emissions by 32 percent below 2005 levels by 2030 ? a not so thinly veiled plan to destroy the coal industry.
It was a senseless and futile gesture that would have cost Americans dearly while doing nearly nothing to protect the planet from global warming.
The U.S. Supreme Court had already blocked enforcement of the plan after 29 states filed suit saying the plan violated the law and the concept of federalism. Nevada filed an amicus brief with the court agreeing with those claims.
According to a Heritage Foundation report, Obama?s plan by 2030 would have cost an annual average employment shortfall of nearly 300,000 jobs with a peak employment shortfall of more than 1 million jobs. It also would have created a loss of more than $2.5 trillion (inflation-adjusted) in aggregate gross domestic product (GDP) and reduced total income per capita by more than $7,000 (inflation-adjusted).
According to the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, the EPA proposal would increase the price of electricity in Nevada an average of 18 percent between 2020 and 2029.
Nevada?s friend-of-the-court brief noted, ?EPA?s expensive economic experiment, imposed by fiat, will increase electricity prices for consumers and may well compromise the reliability of electric power service. The best estimates of how much prices will rise, performed by the NERA (National Economic Research Associates) economic consulting group, projects increases of as much as 14 percent per year costing Americans as much as $79 billion in present dollars.?
Although Obama?s EPA administrator Gina McCarthy insisted those costs were well worth it in order to save the planet, Obama?s own former Assistant Secretary of Energy Charles McConnell said at a congressional hearing in 2016, ?The Clean Power Plan has been falsely sold as impactful environmental regulation when it is really an attempt by our primary federal environmental regulator to take over state and federal regulation of energy.?
McConnell told the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology that he estimated the plan would only reduce global carbon dioxide emissions by 0.2 percent, and the rule would only reduce projected warming by 1/100th a degree Celsius and reduce projected sea level rise by 1/100 of an inch.
?We can now assess whether further regulatory action is warranted, and, if so, what is the most appropriate path forward, consistent with the Clean Air Act and principles of cooperative federalism,? said EPA administrator Scott Pruitt in announcing the rescinding of the Clean Power Plan. The previous rule, he added, ?ignored states? concerns and eroded long-standing and important partnerships that are a necessary part of achieving positive environmental outcomes.?
The change will not affect Nevada as much as other states since the state?s lawmakers, at the behest of former Sen. Harry Reid, have already dictated that all coal-fired plants in the state be shuttered prematurely and the ratepayers pick up the tab. The move is expected to destroy 2,630 jobs by 2020 and cut real disposable income by $226 million per year, according to one study.
The EPA rule change should be a boon to the national economy for years to come, and is a welcome breath of regulatory fresh air, so the speak. ? TM