Ahmad Jaradat

Dr.Cavin

PS 1010

30, March 2017

Failure to Win: The Clean Power Plan

This essay will argue that opposition from companies and states, and

dependence on fossil fuels led to a failure of achieving sufficient support to

allow the Clean Power Plan to go into effect. Burning fossil fuels as the main

source of energy has caused pollutants to accumulate in the atmosphere.

Thus, the climate began to change and people started to experience

respiratory and heart illnesses. The deteriorating air quality was left uncared

for due to air being a common good. None of the current institutions felt the

responsibility to tackle the situation. Eventually, the air quality became so

detrimental that the national government, companies, and organizations

started to develop ways to regulate air pollution.

The dilemma of poor air quality is an ongoing priority in society that

caused many significant efforts to strive in solving the problem. The non-

profit organizations have the lowest impact on improving air quality because

they do not have the authority to force power plants to lower emission rates.

The civil sphere mostly works on planting trees or raising awareness. As

technology improved, companies themselves began to implement new

environmental friendly machinery. These efforts slightly reduced pollutants in

the atmosphere. Power plants were still releasing large amounts of toxic
materials that made the efforts by the market and civil sphere seem

negligible. The national government has the power to make a difference. This

is due to the Supreme Courts ruling that allows the EPA to implement

policies to reduce pollutants that are harmful to public health (Adler). EPA

introduced the Clean Air Act which forced all companies to meet emission

limits. The Clean Power Plan is another policy introduced by the EPA. These

are of the first national standards that address carbon pollution from power

plants. The policy provides states with an open and flexible way to reach the

limits to provide energy reliability and affordability (Fact Sheet EPA). The

three goals of the policy are to improve heat rate of fossil fuel fired plants so

they run more efficiently, switching to natural gas powered plants from coal

powered plants, and increasing renewable power. The policy serves as way

to cut down 30% of pollution from levels from 2005 (Fact Sheet EPA). The

policy serves to regulate carbon pollution and is using its legal authority

established by the Clean Air Act to implement this change.

Coal powered or coal dependent companies do not want to change and

therefore are investing a lot of money to fight the policy. Coal powered

companies and legislations such as Exxon Mobil and American Coalition for

Clean Coal Electricity, ACCCE, are opposing the policy. There are 100 out of

20,000 power plants that are producing a third of the toxic air release.

Another list of 100 out of the same 20,000 power plants are emitting a third

of the greenhouse gasses. Twenty-two sites, which are known as super

polluters appeared on both list and Exxon Mobil is one of them (Hopkins).
They reported an excess of $58 billion-dollar profit in 2014 (Hopkins). This

demonstrates the fact that the few companies that do the most pollution are

fighting against the policy. The coal powered plants rely on their self-interest

and are resisting change to keep on making money from fossil fuels. If they

were to switch to natural energy as described in the policy, they would be

losing a lot of money. As Salovaara states in her article, this is due natural

gas being a cheaper alternative (Salovaara 14). To keep societys method on

acquiring energy they are fighting against every EPA policy. Per the article by

the Union of Concerned Scientists, Exxon Mobil publicly admits that climate

change is a real problem but they still disparaged the Clean Power Plant in

their 2015 speech (Whos Fighting). Exxon mobile also funds special interest

groups behind misleading reports that artificially inflate the costs and ignore

the benefits and other ACCE lobbies state attorney generals to oppose EPA

limits of carbon pollution (Whos Fighting). These are just two of the many

coal fired powered companies that are investing large amounts of money to

stop EPA despite knowing the truth. Other companies are lobbying different

government officials to fight for them. These companies either purposely

misinterpret the facts that EPA provides and make it seem unfeasible.

Consequentially, these companies are successfully pressuring the Supreme

Court to denounce the policy even though citizens are supporting the Clean

Power Plan. The pronounced resistance by power plants is setting up a

barrier for organizations to fight for the plan because of their limited

resources.
 The failure to support the Clean Power Plan to go into effect also comes

from opposition from state governments. Twenty-nine states are claiming

that the EPA is going far beyond the authority Congress granted to it

(Carducci). They are also calling on the Supreme Court to overturn the rule

and they are asking the court to instantly stop its implementation.

(Cruickshank 901). This will likely lead to the Clean power plant to be shut

down in the future because it resembles the many cases that states had with

the EPA the past. For example, the Michigan vs. EPA. The court ruled that the

policy was unconstitutional and it was not implemented (Cruickshank 902).

The Clean Power Plan has received the same resistance from the same states

and is receiving even more disapproval from many more states. The states

and the EPA are both interpreting the power that the EPA has differently.

States are claiming that they cannot be forced to do anything and their

economies will be hurt (Carducci). EPA is fighting an uphill battle due to them

forcing the states to comply with their standards. This will cause the states to

have an advantage in stopping the policy. Despite recognizing that the Clean

Power Plan is a flexible policy, states are going against it claiming that it is

illegal. Looking back at similar cases, EPA has lost many cases in which many

states opposed their plan. If the supreme court rules the policy as legal,

states will look at this as a breach of their rights. States do not want to

privileges and power to the national government.

Another reason demonstrating the failure of Clean Power Plan is that

states are disapproving of the plan claiming that it will hurt their economies
regardless of the city officials wanting regulation. State governments are

arguing that limiting carbon emission will potentially decrease the jobs

available in the coal industry and that changing their methods will be too

costly (Carducci). In spite of the evidence that EPA demonstrates about the

improving economy, states are still claiming that it will be harmful to them.

This coincides with the states not wanting to be forced to change and the

claim of the policy being unconstitutional. The disapproval from states is

putting the Supreme Court in their favor. The states are slowly convincing

the Supreme Court that the policy is illegal and have succeeded on putting

the Clean Power Plan on hold. As Adler states, the U.S. Supreme Court

granted a stay, halting the implementation of the Environmental Protection

Agencys Clean Power Plan pending the resolution of legal challenges to the

program in court (Adler). The Clean Power Plan is losing its support in court.

The ruling of the Supreme Court coupled with the majority of the states

against the plan is leading the making it difficult for the policy to be set.

Even though 19,000 communities and 1,200 cities that are fighting for the

Clean Power Plan, the state legislatures are disagreeing (Spector). States are

ignoring the cities and do not intend to follow the policy. The result of this

could be from companies lobbying the legislatures into fighting the plan. The

local governments currently do not have enough to change the supreme

courts decision. However, the legal battle between local and state

governments may change in the future. This will allow local governments
who are in support to air regulation to be able to have a say EPA policies but

the current efforts are not enough to impact the states.

The Clean Power Plan as some people say is going to be a critical

policy that will implement large public health benefits. As Dwyer states in his

article, people are looking at the policy as an important signal of U.S.

leadership and that the United States will be able to move into a cleaner

alternative (Dwyer). However, change could prove to be difficult since many

states are dependent on coal for energy. The use of coal to produce

electricity has been declining. As Deyette asserts that 37 states are still

heavily dependent on coal fired power and spend $19.4 billion to import 433

million tons of coal (Deyette). The dependence of coal in the United States is

making it hard for states to change their methods to use natural gas. Coal is

becoming less popular but states are still using coal as a source of energy

despite going to cheaper alternatives. The Clean Power Plan was set up to

successfully reduce carbon pollution. The reliance on coal, however, led to

states to being oppose on the Clean Power Plan. This becomes a barrier that

states not want to overcome. Deyette in his article demonstrates a figure

showing the states 37 states that are dependent on coal (Deyette). The

states shown are the same states that are resisting the Clean Power Plan

mentioned before. The correlation between dependence on coal and

opposing the Clean Power Plan demonstrates the necessity of resisting the

Clean Power Plan. Therefore, the Clean Power Plan will not be able to make it
through the Supreme Court and the policy will not implement changes in the

United States.

The Clean Power Plan failed to go into effect due to resistance made by

companies and states. Also, the policy failed to get any support since states

where still dependent on coal. These factors are making it hard for the EPA to

pass the Clean Power Plan. Companies are investing money to resist change

and states are claiming that the policy is unconstitutional. Also, states are

claiming that it is illegal for the EPA to force the policy. This makes it hard for

organizations to make any significant changes in air quality. The traditional

methods of introducing a policy for states to implement is not going to work.

Based on the current situation, the most successful way to implement the

Clean Air Act is to either get more support from local governments or make

natural energy more profitable. The Clean Power Plan is favored by most

Americans, but due to people with more resources and power change is not

imminent.

Sources
Adler, Jonathan H. Supreme Court Puts the Brakes on the EPAs Clean Power

Plan.
The Washington Post, WP Company, 9 Feb. 2016
Carducci, Alyssa. Senate Hearing HIghlights State Clean Power Plan

Objections. The
Heartland Institute, The Heartland Institute, 21 May 2015
Cruickshank, Lesley S. "The Drafting Error That Could Derail the Clean Power

Plan."
Alabama Law Journal 67.3 (2016): 887-[viii]
Deyette, Jeff. Even as Coal Use Declines, Most States Are Still Dependent on

Coal
Imports. Union of Concerned Scientists, 22 Jan. 2014
Dwyer, Marge. Clean Air and Health Benefits of Clean Power Plan Hinge on

Key Policy
Decisions. Harvard School of Public Health News. 4 May 2015.
Fact Sheet: Overview of the Clean Power Plan. EPA Clean Power Plan,
Environmental Protection Agency, 27 June 2016.
Hopkins, Jamie. Meet America's Super Polluters. USA Today, Center for

Public
Integrity, 29 Sept. 2016.
Salovaara, Jackson. Coal to Natural Gas Fuel Switching and CO2 Emissions
Reduction. Harvard Kennedy School, 1 Apr. 2011, pp. 198.
Spector, Julian. The City-State Split Over Obama's Clean Power Plan.

CityLab, The
Atlantic, 28 Dec. 2015.
Whos Fighting the Clean Power Plan and EPA Action on Climate Change

Union of
Concerned Scientists, Union of Concerned Scientists.