President Donald Trump’s administration has proposed a rule to address climate change in the U.S. that is “emergency” in the eyes of the law.
But the Trump-led EPA has issued an official interpretation of the Clean Power Plan, which aims to cut emissions by 30% by 2025.
The rule is likely to be the first major rule of its kind for the U, and it has drawn criticism from both Democrats and Republicans, who say the rule will increase the cost of electricity in the country.
“If this rule were in effect, the average American household would be paying a $1,000 per month increase in the price of electricity,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said in a statement.
The EPA is now preparing a final rule for the Clean Energy Standard (CES), a plan that would increase the number of electric power plants in the nation by 25%.
The plan, which was developed by a task force led by former President Obama, would also allow states to adopt their own renewable energy standards.
A number of states have already opted to do so, including Arizona, Florida, Kansas, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota and South Dakota.
In 2018, the White House also announced that it would review the rules and take steps to protect the environment.
However, the EPA’s rule is expected to face strong resistance from utilities and industry.
“It is a big step backward,” said Scott Luskin, a climate policy analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists.
A study published in June by the Energy Information Administration found that utilities in the Northeast and Midwest would be responsible for more than $10 billion in climate change damages, while consumers would receive an additional $8 billion. “
They are going after these big energy companies, and they are going into this environment with the idea that they’re going to protect us from climate change,” Luskins said.
A study published in June by the Energy Information Administration found that utilities in the Northeast and Midwest would be responsible for more than $10 billion in climate change damages, while consumers would receive an additional $8 billion.
The study, titled “The Climate Problem in the United States: An Analysis of Potential Costs and Benefits of CO2 Emissions Increases,” was done by a group of industry experts and researchers.
It found that the rule could increase costs for the average U.P. household by $1.35 per month, and that it could result in an additional loss of $3,200 in electricity for the region.
A spokesman for the Trump EPA did not respond to a request for comment.
“This rule will hurt consumers and businesses alike,” said Matthew Kuehl, a senior adviser to the American Chemistry Council, a chemical industry group.
“That’s why we need to protect our economy and the environment from this rule.”
The proposed rule would allow states the ability to set their own energy efficiency standards, but it does not specifically allow for incentives for renewable energy sources.
It does include a list of energy-efficient and low-emission technologies, but the study found that most of the proposed rules would apply only to renewable sources.
For example, the proposed rule exempts electric vehicles from the rule, but does not include the technology to turn electric vehicles into fuel cells.
“The rules will make it harder for the states to take steps that would provide additional incentives to help drive down energy consumption,” Kuehls said.
“Energy efficiency measures will not be considered.
This is really an issue about incentives and incentives are not a clean energy standard.”
The study found the rule would result in $1 trillion in losses for electricity in 2040.
The proposal is likely due to be voted on next month, but has drawn widespread criticism from industry groups, including the American Petroleum Institute.
“We think it’s a terrible proposal,” said Steve Ellis, director of government affairs for the American Energy Alliance, a trade group.
He noted that the rules have already led to several oil and gas drilling and coal mining layoffs.
“I think it will hurt job creators and hurt businesses,” Ellis said.
The Trump administration has also said that it wants to reduce carbon emissions by 80%, from 1990 levels.
But some environmentalists and consumer groups say that’s not enough.
The Environmental Protection Agency has already warned that the proposed carbon standards would add $1 to the price tag of a gallon of gasoline.
“At a time when the price is rising and the climate is changing, the Trump Administration is putting the interests of fossil fuel corporations ahead of our children and grandchildren,” said Joe DeFede, a spokeswoman for the Sierra Club.
The American Energy Association, which represents oil, gas, coal and natural gas companies, issued a statement on Monday urging the Trump and Republican-led Congress to act on the climate change rule.
“With the current rules and the lack of any real environmental oversight, the Administration is proposing an extremely burdensome rule that will cost jobs, damage our environment, and put our kids, our grandchildren and our future generations at risk,” said the statement.