Obama’s new coal rule: Bold climate leadership, a lawsuit waiting to happen, or both?
On Monday President Obama is expected to announce draft plans that would aim to cut emissions from coal-fired US power plants by up to 20 per cent.
The plan will make use of executive powers under the Clean Air Act, avoiding the need to get approval from the US Congress. The Obama administration is in the process of using these powers to introduce rules limiting emissions from new power stations.
Now America’s existing fleet of coal plants is in the firing line. To soften the blow, US states are expected to be given leeway to meet their share of a national coal emissions target through carbon trading, renewables or energy efficiency.
Here’s what the media on both sides of the Atlantic had to say.
US
The New York Times says the rule will be Obama’s “most forceful effort” to make the US tackle climate change. News analysis website Vox says the rule shows the president has the strength to act without Congress’ approval. It’s almost as if the Environmental Protection Agency is now Obama’s personal legislative branch, complains Fox News – which is no fan of either.
The plan is also being watched keenly from afar. The New York Times says foreign governments are seeing it as a test of the US’s seriousness about combating climate change. Former UN climate chief Yvo de Boer tells RTCC that the plan is a “critical moment” on the road to a global climate deal.
The rule could provide Obama with “real clout and bargaining power” in the international arena, the Huffington Post suggests. It could help the US finally become a credible actor in international climate negotiations, news website Mashable concludes. But similarly bold statements before the Copenhagen summit in 2009 ultimately ended in disappointment.
Not everyone is happy with the idea of the US becoming a climate leader. Before the rule has even been formally announced, opposition is being voiced.
A report from the US Chamber of Commerce claims the rule could cost $50 billion a year and lead to the loss of 224,000 jobs, Bloomberg reports.
White House adviser John Podesta took to Twitter to dismiss the report. He linked to an EPA blog claiming there are “major gaps” in the report’s figures. For instance, the report claims the rule implies fitting expensive carbon capture and storage technology to all power plants. Not true, the EPA says. Such errors led environmental interest group the National Resources Defense Council to call the report “a big lie”.
Other industries are concerned it sets a precedent. The National Mining Association and National Association of Manufacturers fear they may be next in line for EPA attention. Some states are also unhappy about the pl ans, the Washington Post reports.
Fox News predicts a slew of lawsuits with the potential to “undo it all”. But the president is confident the courts will continue to back EPA action, political news website The Hill reports.
The volume of debate ultimately sh ows “all sides agree that the rule involves enormous stakes”, analysis website Politico argues.
Europe
Most newspapers in Europe seem to be waiting for Obama to announce the details on Monday.
In France, two reports have appeared, both based on New York Times coverage. One describes the plan as Obama’s “ecological heritage”. The German press has not covered the story so far. Neither have the Times, Telegraph, Independent or the tabloid press.
The Guardian says the plans could “make climate history”. It claims they could aim to cut emissions from all fossil fuel power stations by 25 per cent, including those burning gas. That would be much more ambitious than the 20 per cent cut for coal-fired plants alone, reported by most other news outlets.
The final shape of the plan will show whether Obama has, in his own words, “the courage to act” on climate change according to Business Green.
The Financial Times has carried the most extensive coverage, carrying several articles looking into the expected impacts on coal-fired electric utility firms and coal-reliant states such as West Virginia.
It recounts the story of the 1,300 megawatt Mountaineer coal-fired power station owned by American Electric Power. The plant is an interesting example because it was home to a $100 million carbon capture and storage project. American Electric Power pulled the plug on the pilot in 2011 citing the “uncertain status of US climate policy”.
The Daily Mail also carries the story of a US coal-fired power plant. The 2,000 megawatt Homer City plant’s owners challenged sulphur dioxide emission limits through the courts. When this failed, it warned of “immediate and devastating” consequences. Two years on it has learned to adapt to the controls, the article says.
The Financial Times also speculates on the potential for the planned coal rule to drive growth in US regional carbon trading schemes. American Electric Power is very much in favour of this idea. It says it has invested billions fitting pollution control equipment to plants like Mountaineer in order to meet progressively tightening clean air rules, so it would be reluctant to have to shut them down.