Thursday, June 05, 2014

Random impressions following the Obama's move on climate

  • In addition to the 30% reduction by 2030, the rule includes interim reduction averages over the years 2020-2029, a good means of preventing a combination of delaying and then claiming compliance is impossible.
  • There's a very early deadline for this proposed rule, June 30, 2016 for states to submit their proposals. I think this will play into the legal maneuvering. States and fossil fuel corporations will not only have to sue when the rule is finalized next year, they'll have to win preliminary injunctions to stop the law. If they don't get PIs, then time is on the side of good guys - litigation can drag on as long as possible but the states will still have to reduce emissions in the interim, and after a while they will have reduced incentive to fight the regulation. (Disclaimer- my usual one, I'm not a Clean Air Act lawyer.)
  • The proposed rule includes an alternate proposal that just regulates the generating plants and doesn't rely on efficiency and renewable energy. This sounds to me like a reference to the legal question of whether the EPA can look "outside the fence" of the generating plant to achieve emission reductions. It seems like a warning, that doing it this way could be a lot more expensive but feasible. That may be a warning against the attempt we've seen repeatedly to run up the cost of regulation in order to kill it.
  • Leafing through the rule, page 57 says the air pollution benefits outweigh costs even setting aside all climate benefits. So much for the stupid arguments that skeptics have been making to date.
  • Some commenters have noted the parallel between this rule and Obamacare in terms of maximizing authority for the states. Can't find where I read it, but somebody also noted the likely parallel that some states will refuse to submit a plan to achieve the goals. So did the EPA, saying "If a state with affected EGUs does not submit a plan, or if the EPA does not approve a state’s plan, then, under CAA section 111(d)(2)(A), the EPA must establish a plan for that state." AFAICT that sentence stands alone - they may need to spell it out in a little greater detail.
  • Jamelle Bouie says that national Republicans have themselves to blame for this regulation, because they are the ones that stopped cap-and-trade or any serious possibility for a carbon tax. Cap-and-trade included provisions making a transition to a lower-carbon economy easier on the poor, but Republicans are now crying crocodile tears over that problem (while ignoring the health benefits).
  • China is now engaging in a discussion over whether to cap their emissions, planning the cap in the next five year plan and hitting it in 2030. That's not enough, but it's something and I think American action can help Chinese proponents of action.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

This article suggests that the plan "accommodates" coal states.

http://tinyurl.com/oepamkv

John Puma

Dano said...

RE: talks with China - I'm reminded of a Chinese saying "A thousand-mile journey begins with one foot put down". Better late than never, I suppose.

And an aside with regard to Leafing through the rule, page 57 says the air pollution benefits outweigh costs even setting aside all climate benefits. So much for the stupid arguments that skeptics have been making to date.

Every other year or so the EPA puts out a cost-benefit analysis of the cost of CAA legislation. Their findings...erm...find that the benefits exceed costs in the 5:1 range, generally.

Of course these costs are private and the benefits are public, so they are horrible job-killin' regulations and theft and will end the world.

Best,

D

Anonymous said...


China's emissions will be double the US's emissions in 2014. Assuming the Chinese GDP continues a rapid growth rate and emissions intensity improves 3% per year (as promised), their emissions will be triple the US's current emissions sometime in the 2020's. It will be a major sacrifice for them to cap their emissions in 2030, when population has stopped growing and their per capita emissions are likely to equal to the US and significantly higher than most of the rest of the developed world. Of course, all of those relatively new coal-powered electricity plants will probably continue emitting CO2 for many decades.

Anonymice