New York’s top law enforcer, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and other organizations have reacted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) June 2 proposal that would mandate that existing power plants cut carbon-dioxide emissions 30 percent by 2030. “Climate change, fueled by carbon pollution, supercharges risks to our health, our economy, and our way […]
Get Instant Access to This Article
Become a Central New York Business Journal subscriber and get immediate access to all of our subscriber-only content and much more.
- Critical Central New York business news and analysis updated daily.
- Immediate access to all subscriber-only content on our website.
- Get a year's worth of the Print Edition of The Central New York Business Journal.
- Special Feature Publications such as the Book of Lists and Revitalize Greater Binghamton, Mohawk Valley, and Syracuse Magazines
Click here to purchase a paywall bypass link for this article.
New York’s top law enforcer, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and other organizations have reacted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) June 2 proposal that would mandate that existing power plants cut carbon-dioxide emissions 30 percent by 2030.
“Climate change, fueled by carbon pollution, supercharges risks to our health, our economy, and our way of life. EPA is delivering on a vital piece of President Obama’s Climate Action Plan by proposing a Clean Power Plan that will cut harmful carbon pollution from our largest source — power plants,” Gina McCarthy, EPA administrator, said in the agency’s news release rolling out the controversial regulations.
In addition, the plan would cut carbon emissions from the power sector 30 percent nationwide below 2005 levels, which is equal to the emissions from powering more than half the homes in the U.S. for one year, the EPA contends. It would also cut particle pollution, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur dioxide more than 25 percent.
The EPA contends the plan would avoid up to 6,600 premature deaths, up to 150,000 asthma attacks in children, and up to 490,000 missed work or school days, providing up to $93 billion in climate and public health benefits.
The agency also believes the effort would shrink electricity bills roughly 8 percent by “increasing energy efficiency and reducing demand in the electricity system.”
Support
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman that same day applauded the proposal.
Climate change poses a “real and present danger” to the people, environment, and economy of New York, Schneiderman said in a statement released by his office.
“Today’s landmark proposal would, for the first time, limit climate-change pollution from the nation’s single largest source, existing fossil-fueled power plants. It would also leverage state-proven methods of cutting climate change pollution by offering states and power companies flexibility in fashioning strategies to achieve needed reductions.”
Schneiderman in March 2011, leading a coalition of states and cities, reached final settlement with the EPA in a 2006 action brought over the agency’s “failure” to set limits on emissions of climate-change pollution from power plants.
The settlement resulted in a schedule for EPA to set these limits, leading to EPA’s proposal in September 2013 to limit climate-change pollution from new power plants and the new proposal to limit existing power plants’ emissions of this pollution.
Opposition
Opponents of the proposed regulations say they expect them to lead to higher costs and hurt job growth.
“[The] regulations issued by EPA add immense cost and regulatory burdens on America’s job creators. They will have a profound effect on the economy, on businesses, and on families,” Thomas Donohue, president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said in a news release. “The Chamber will be actively participating in EPA’s input process on these regulations, and will be educating our members and affiliates about their impacts.”
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is the world’s largest business federation representing the interests of more than 3 million businesses of all sizes, sectors, and regions, along with state and local chambers and industry associations.
Another organization is sharing reasons why it is opposed to the EPA proposal.
The National Center for Public Policy Research, a conservative think tank, released a paper entitled, “Top Ten Reasons Washington Should Not Impose New Global Warming Laws or Regulations.”
In it, the National Center contends the planet hasn’t warmed since the Clinton administration.
In addition, U.S. energy-related, carbon-dioxide emissions already fell 12.6 percent between 2005 and 2012, while global emissions rose 17.7 percent during the same period.
The organization also contends that claims that 97 percent of scientists endorse the global warming theory are “propaganda,” according to its news release.
The National Center for Public Policy Research describes itself as a communications and research foundation supportive of a “strong national defense and dedicated to providing free market solutions to today’s public-policy problems.”
Contact Reinhardt at ereinhardt@cnybj.com