JUDY WOODRUFF: The Trump administration today rolled out new rules that would reverse course
to a cornerstone of the Obama agenda: regulating emissions from coal-burning power plants.
Yamiche Alcindor begins our coverage with this report that she filed from coal country
in West Virginia.
YAMICHE ALCINDOR: The new rule would give states wide leeway on whether to limit emissions
and by how much.
That includes allowing older power plants to operate longer.
The proposal, called the Affordable Clean Energy Rule, would replace Obama era regulations.
Those rules aggressively pushed for accelerated closures of older coal-fired plants by setting
national targets, by reducing carbon dioxide emissions, and encouraging adoption of cleaner
energies, such as solar and wind power.
The rules have never taken effect because of legal challenges from 27 states.
In a phone call with reporters this morning, Andrew Wheeler, the acting Environmental Protection
Agency administrator, said the new rule would lead to more affordable energy bills for consumers.
He also called the efforts from the Obama administration an overreach of EPA's authority.
ANDREW WHEELER, Acting EPA Administrator: The era of top-down, one-size-fits-all federal
mandates is over.
We will give states and the private sector the regulatory certainty they need to invest
in new technologies and provides clean, affordable and reliable energy for all Americans.
YAMICHE ALCINDOR: The Trump rule would reduce carbon dioxide emissions by around 1 percent,
compared to no regulation.
But that's a big difference from the benefits President Obama cited when he rolled out his
plan in 2015.
BARACK OBAMA, Former President of the United States: With this Clean Power Plan, by 2030,
carbon pollution from our power plants will be 32 percent lower than it was a decade ago.
We will reduce premature deaths from power plant emissions by nearly 90 percent.
And thanks to this plan, there will be 90,000 fewer asthma attacks among our children each
year.
YAMICHE ALCINDOR: The Obama era rule has always drawn criticism from coal industry and many
communities like this one that have traditionally relied on coal to create jobs and support
the local economy.
In West Virginia, where President Trump is holding a rally tonight, we talked to voters
about today's announcement.
RUTH PREECE, West Virginia: There was no jobs with those regulations.
I mean, I'm all for the environment, but there is a right way and a wrong way.
You don't do a blanket approach to something.
DENISE SAMMONS, West Virginia: Where I live, in Mingo County, we're in the heart of the
billion-dollar coal field, and literally people were moving out of the state of West Virginia
because we had no jobs.
YAMICHE ALCINDOR: Democrats attacked the proposal today.
And environmental groups quickly condemned today's proposed change.
In a statement, the National Resources Defense Council said: "Trump's EPA is abandoning any
attempt to curb the carbon pollution that's driving damaging climate change.
This proposal violates the law and cooks the books on science and economics, all to prop
up coal power plants that can't compete with cleaner energy."
As the Obama era regulations were, these new rules are expected to be challenged in court.
For the "PBS NewsHour," I'm Yamiche Alcindor in Charleston, West Virginia.
JUDY WOODRUFF: For a closer look at these changes and the potential impact, I'm joined
by Juliet Eilperin, who covers this closely for The Washington Post.
Juliet Eilperin, welcome back to the "NewsHour."
Again, just to clarify, the regulations the Trump administration is rolling back from
the Obama administration had never really taken effect?
JULIET EILPERIN, The Washington Post: Right.
There had been -- they had been stayed by the Supreme Court, because more than two dozen
attorneys general from Republican states and the industry had challenged EPA's authority
to impose such sweeping limits beyond the plants themselves.
And so as a result, they have not taken effect.
JUDY WOODRUFF: What is it about the Obama era regulations that the Trump administration
so objects to?
JULIET EILPERIN: So the biggest argument they made against those rules was the idea that
they applied not just to the operations of the power plants themselves, but they went
beyond the fence line.
What that meant is that they said to states, look, we want you the meet these emission
targets, and by doing that, you can encourage energy efficiency, you can promote the development
and deployment of natural gas plants and renewable energy projects, and those are all ways that
you can reduce carbon emissions.
And, essentially, the opponents of that rule said, no, that's not what's really allowed
under the Clean Air Act.
And all you can do is make the existing plants more efficient, which is what this new proposal
does.
JUDY WOODRUFF: And what about the practical consequences of this?
What do we look for?
JULIET EILPERIN: So, there are a couple of things.
When it comes to greenhouse gas emissions, it will slow the decline of carbon dioxide
cuts over time.
The Obama rule would have done slightly more, although we do see the power sector getting
cleaner over time, in part because of cheaper natural gas and renewable energy.
In terms of the public health impacts, that's where you are certainly going to see a difference,
because one thing that the Trump administration is now proposing is that utilities that want
to make their existing coal-fired plants more efficient can make those upgrades without
installing the kind of pollution controls on traditional pollutants that normally are
required under the Clean Air Act.
So emissions of soot -- those are fine particle -- and smog-forming pollutants, including
sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, could potentially increase over time.
The Trump EPA estimates that, by 2030, there will be an additional, for example, between
470 and 1,400 deaths a year as a result of an uptick in those traditional pollutants.
JUDY WOODRUFF: And how does the Trump administration explain that?
How do they defend that decision?
JULIET EILPERIN: So their argument is that this rule is about carbon dioxide and not
those other pollutants, and they're adhering to the law and focusing on greenhouse gas
emissions, and that they have other methods of controlling those emissions, so potentially
they could, you know, address it in another capacity.
What they're saying is that they want to make these plants more efficient, and, by definition,
if they're going to do that and not impose an additional regulatory burden on these plants,
they wanted to make it easier to do these upgrades, and as a result, they're not -- they're
changing the kind of current requirements that exist under federal law.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Who is happy about this decision, Juliet?
JULIET EILPERIN: So, utilities for the most part say that they're happy about it, that
this is -- that while they still face a number of market pressures and they will be, you
know, for example, changing their fuel mix over time, this gives them breathing room
if they want to keep some of these older plants in operation.
Certainly, you see Republicans, the vast majority of Republicans, both in Congress and on the
state level, including many of these attorneys general I mentioned that had been suing, they
are welcoming this.
So from those two camps, you have a significant amount of support, who say that this will
give them more flexibility and is something that will help them economically.
JUDY WOODRUFF: But, clearly, the environmental community and others not happy with this decision.
What about court challenges going forward?
What do you expect?
JULIET EILPERIN: So, we absolutely expect a court challenge from essentially the same
groups that were defending the Obama era rule.
So that would be environmental groups, as you mentioned, as well as a slew of Democratic
attorneys general.
We have already gotten indications that, whether it's from California or Massachusetts, they're
already preparing a legal challenge, arguing that many of these changes violate the Clean
Air Act, because the federal government is not -- is basically delegating too much authority
to the states, and that it needs to be stricter in terms of the emissions reductions it's
requiring.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Juliet Eilperin of The Washington Post, thank you.
JULIET EILPERIN: Thanks so much.