The chief of the Environmental Protection Agency will announce a proposal Monday that would require power plants to cut their carbon emissions by 30% by 2030, a source briefed on the matter told CNN.
States will have a variety of options to meet the goal, the source said.
Those include improving energy efficiency both inside and outside the plants, changing how long the plants operate each day, and increasing the amount of power derived in other ways through clean energy, the source said.
By acting through a regulation rather than proposing a law, the president skirts Congress.
Some Republicans aren’t happy, saying the requirement will kill jobs in the coal industry. But the White House says it’s not just good for the environment, it will also be healthier.
“As president, and as a parent, I refuse to condemn our children to a planet that’s beyond fixing,” Obama said in his weekly addressSaturday.
“Being able to act to regulate the emissions of carbon will create profound benefits for the health of our children,” White House spokesman Jay Carney told CNN’s “New Day” on Monday, citing a spike in asthma among children that needs to be curbed. “It also creates huge benefits when it comes to enhancing our energy security and creating opportunities — entrepreneurial opportunities.”
Asked about criticism that the move won’t make much difference globally without India and China doing the same, Carney said, “The United States has to lead, first of all, and this is an indication that the United States will lead on this very important challenged posed by climate change and global warming.”
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a business federation, estimated the new regulations will cost the economy $50 billion a year.
“The administration has set out to kill coal and its 800,000 jobs,”Sen. Mike Enzi said in the GOP weekly address Saturday. “If it succeeds in death by regulation, we’ll all be paying a lot more money for electricity — if we can get it.”
“All the major legislative and regulatory proposals to combat global warming kill jobs and disproportionately hurt lower income people and minorities,” the conservative National Center for Public Policy Research argued in a list of “top ten reasons Washington should not impose new global warming laws or regulations.”
But environmental advocates say such claims are exaggerated.
“This is something we can’t put off, and the President deserves huge credit for making this his legacy,” said David Doniger of the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Carney wrote off job loss claims as a “doomsday scenario. That’s what they said when regulation was put in place in 1990 over acid rain. And it wasn’t true then.”
Obama’s move could affect competitive Senate races in states with a significant coal industry, such as Kentucky, North Carolina and Colorado, where Democrats are trying to keep control of the upper chamber. Voters upset with Obama could swing their support to Republicans.
Americans on all sides of the issue will have a chance to comment before the regulations take effect.
“Every regulation is developed under slightly different circumstances,” but there is a general process that’s followed, the EPA explains on its website. “The proposal is listed in the Federal Register so that members of the public can consider it and send their comments to us. The proposed rule and supporting documents are also filed in EPA’s official docket on Regulations.gov.
“Generally, once we consider the comments received when the proposed regulation was issued, we revise the regulation accordingly and issue a final rule.”
It’s then codified in the Code of Federal Regulations.
Carney said last week that the president’s proposal isn’t just about the environment and health; it’s also about making the country more energy independent.