Epa 's Clean Power Plan

His administration insists that with these new rules going into an effect will cut emissions of carbon dioxide and other deadly gases by thirty percent between the years 2012-2016 (Baker,2010). Unfortunately Obama’s new policy will only help conserve for the next six years. The following resource plan will not only help do the same but will hopefully have the same if not better results even farther into the future.

In the past, the Congress and the House have forced the state governments to meet in certain enviromental standards. (Sparknotes Editors, Federalism, page 2)

In 2011 Texas, Alabama, Louisiana, Virginia and several other industry groups sued Environmental Protection Agency over a Cross state pollution rule, also known as the transport rule. For years, the Environmental Protection Agency had implemented rules to cut emissions dating back to 1998. They identified twenty-seven states which included Texas that were considered “upwind” states. They believed that these states significantly affected the quality air in “downwind” states. The lawyers for the state argued that the rule would hurt job

Often times these more stringent standards are put in place by the EPA as federal standards after research and testing has been accomplished by those states. An example of this is the required use of Catalytic converters on pollution controlled motor vehicles in 1974 in California, two years later in 1976, the EPA required the use of Catalytic converters on all pollution controlled motor vehicles nationwide.

The U.S. submitted its INDC to achieve an economy-wide target of reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 26%-28% below its 2005 level by 2025. With this plan, the U.S. has several laws related to its environmental policies. Among them, these are main four Acts (Korea Institute of Energy Research [KIER], 2016a): The Energy Policy Act established in 1992 was to secure energy security and revised in 2005 to decrease the reliance on oil and coal energy; The Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) legislated in 2007 due to the necessity for energy independence caused by the unstable Middle East and high oil prices, so President Bush announced the 'Twenty in Ten Initiative ' that aimed to reduce 20% of the gasoline consumption by 2017; The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) was enacted in 2009 as one of the reflationary measures, and this included $8.5 billion investment for energy-related policies; The Clean Air Act (CAA), made in 1970, regulated the atmospheric pollution sources and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) used CAA to restrict the greenhouse gas.

In Jan. 2011, the EPA decided to veto the dumping of waste from the Spruce No. 1 Mine. But the agency’s efforts have so far been rebuffed by the courts as an overreach: Under the weird legal regime that governs mining, it’s the Army Corps of Engineers, not the EPA, which has the ultimate say-so over those permits. In 2012, the D.C. district court ruled that EPA lacked authority to veto the permit after the Corps had issued it. However, in fact EPA's decision is based on evidence from scientific research on serious environmental harm from mining. In May 2013, a coalition of Appalachian and environmental groups petitioned the EPA to set a numeric water quality standard under the Clean Water Act to protect streams from pollution caused by mountaintop removal mining . They claimed that “State politics and industry pressure have so far failed to end this pollution without such a standard and more and more streams and communities who rely on those waters are left vulnerable. We need EPA to act now.” The EPA’s authority over the Clean Water Act in respect to Spruce Mine No. 1 was finally affirmed by the Supreme Court in March 2014.

Legislation to Authorize the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to Accept, as Part of a Settlement, Diesel Emission Reduction Supplemental Environmental Projects : Report (to Accompany S. 2146)." (2008): 1-4. UWSP Library Forward. Web. 01 Jan. 2012.

The policy revisions fall under the Clean Air Act and were bolstered by President Obama’s Climate Action Plan. The Clean Air Act is a federal law designed to control air pollution on a national level. Obama’s Climate Action plan is a directed effort to

On August 3, 2015, President Obama announced new carbon pollution standards for power plants under the Clean Power Plan (CPP).[1] The purpose of the plan was to decrease carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions to promote better air quality. This plan will impact not only coal fired power plants and the coal industry, but also individuals who live around them and the greater populous. This paper seeks to answer if such a plan should go forward and the impacts of such a plan on the parties listed above. To answer this question, this paper will look

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 impose certain requirements on States that have not achieved the national air quality standards established by the Environmental Protection Agency in earlier legislation. The Amendments required the “nonattainment” states to establish a permit

By the year 2020, the Amendments to the Clean Air Act passed in 1990 will have prevented 230,000 early deaths, and saved the country around 2 trillion dollars. This is compared to the costs of the amendments, which the EPA calculated to be approximately 65 billion dollars. The study does not just stop at the monetary benefits and costs, but it also even dives into the number of prevented emergency room visits, and lost work and school days. With all of this information, the EPA makes it very clear the countless benefits to the United States that the Clean Air Act Amendments are having and will have in the

Efficiency at a power plant is determined by energy conversion rate. This is rate is measured by the input energy source, in this case coal, in proportion to the output, which is the power generated. The less fuel that is required for power generation, the more efficient it is. Efficiency is very sensitive in relation to the amount of carbon dioxide emitted. A single percentage increase in the efficiency of a coal fired power plant yields a 2-3% reduction in the carbon dioxide levels emitted by this plant. The power stations on the upper side on the scale of efficiency may emit up to 40% less carbon dioxide than the average power stations currently installed. The efficiency of power plant improvements include the most cost effective and shortest lead time actions for reducing emissions from coal fired electricity. This is especially true in developing and lower-economy countries

The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) is a cap and trade initiative set to regulate and reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases from power generating facilities with an electrical capacity equal or greater than 25 electrical megawatts (RGGI, 2015). The drafting of this initiative started in 2003 when Connecticut (CT), Delaware (DE), Maine (ME), Massachusetts (MA), New Hampshire (NH), New Jersey (NJ), New York (NY), Rhode Island (RI), and Vermont (VT) showed interest in reviewing greenhouse gas emissions and a cap-trade coalition to address the emission from power plants in their territory. In 2005, the above mentioned states with the exception of RI and MA signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that outlined the model rules for the program. Some of the topics outlined in RGGI Model Rule include: the responsibilities of the account representatives, permitting recommendations, monitoring requirements, compliance certification reports, control periods and others. The Model Rules were also the building blocks used to develop state-specific regulations supporting the goals and actions necessary to succeed as a member. In 2007 MA, RI and MD also signed the MOU (RGGI, 2015a; RGGI, 2015b). On January 1, 2012, RGGI lost one of its founding members after the governor of NJ; Chris Christie withdrew NJ’s support to the initiative. Throughout its participation, NJ received over $100 million in revenues directly from the RGGI markets. (Christie, 2011) The

In early August, the Obama Administration proposed a new plan of action to combat climate change: the Clean Power Plan. It's even got its own website with cool infographics and videos! Proving that he did his homework, Obama discusses how power plants generate far more carbon than any other source in the U.S., and—you wouldn't believe it!—the federal government has never placed any limits on power plant carbon emissions. And guess what? Barry O is doing it!

The city adopted the plan back in 2009 and set the goal of reducing carbon emission by 20% by 2015. The CPH 2025 climate plan focus areas are: