Search Climate Insights Directory

The Union of Concerned Scientists claims that We Energies and independent power producers in Wisconsin are separating the construction and power acquisition review processes to avoid considering community needs when approving new gas plants. The author asserts that this 'ruse' prevents public debate on power sources and calls for legislators to implement long-term energy planning requirements to prevent regulators from reviewing interrelated cases in silos.

The report identifies 5,500 hazardous facilities along US coastlines at risk of 100-year coastal flooding by 2100 under a high-emissions scenario (RCP 8.5). It highlights that marginalized populations—including renters, non-voters, and those in poverty—are 15-41% more likely to live within 1 kilometer of these sites. The risk is heavily concentrated, with nearly 80% of at-risk facilities located in seven states, and specific infrastructure like fossil fuel ports and terminals are particularly vulnerable, with over 40% expected to be at risk.

The document argues that recent Supreme Court rulings have shifted power from subject matter experts in federal agencies to the judiciary, creating regulatory instability and making it harder to defend environmental protections. It specifically analyzes the blocking of the Good Neighbor Rule, the elimination of Chevron deference, the expansion of statutes of limitations for challenging regulations, and the restriction of agency-led civil penalty enforcement. The author contends that these changes will lead to a 'tsunami of lawsuits' and a patchwork of conflicting legal interpretations, necessitating more rigorous technical and legal justifications for new agency rules.

GreenLatinos condemns the US Supreme Court's ruling in West Virginia v. EPA, stating it undermines the EPA's ability to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from power plants and harms communities of color. The organization links this legal setback to broader human rights issues and climate-induced migration, calling on Congress to pass a $550 billion reconciliation package and invest in a just transition to renewable energy.

The Supreme Court's ruling in West Virginia v. EPA limits the EPA's ability to use 'generation shifting' as a basis for emission standards but preserves the agency's authority to mandate specific pollution control technologies. The decision also expands the 'major questions doctrine,' which may hinder federal agencies from addressing novel environmental problems without explicit congressional authorization.

The Clean Air Task Force calls on the U.S. EPA to update national ambient standards for ozone and fine particulate matter and urges Congress to provide $500 million to modernize the air quality monitoring system. The statement highlights that while combined emissions of six key pollutants dropped by 78 percent between 1970 and 2020, low-income and minority communities remain disproportionately burdened. It further emphasizes that climate change exacerbates air quality issues, such as increasing ground-level ozone and wildfire-driven particulate pollution, and advocates for a synergistic approach to reducing both greenhouse gases and conventional pollutants.

The Clean Air Task Force (CATF) supports a brief filed by sixteen organizations opposing Supreme Court review of the D.C. Circuit's decision to vacate the 2019 Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) Rule. The ACE Rule was found to have unlawfully restricted federal authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from existing coal- and gas-fired power plants. The opposition argues that because the ACE rule is defunct and the Biden Administration has not yet issued a replacement, there is no active dispute or existing rule for the Court to review, making requests for review by coal states and mining companies premature.

The Clean Air Act has significantly improved U.S. air quality and public health since 1970, with benefits outweighing costs by 30-to-1 in 2020. However, the Clean Air Task Force notes that communities of color and low-income populations still suffer disproportionate pollution burdens, and the Trump Administration's rollbacks of climate and methane regulations have undermined the Act's goals.

The Clean Air Task Force argues that the EPA's decision to maintain current particulate matter standards ignores scientific evidence and career staff recommendations for a tighter standard (as low as 8 µg/m 3), thereby undermining public health and environmental justice for low-income communities and people of color.

Clean Air Task Force argues that the EPA's proposed ozone reductions are insufficient, urging the agency to address the 2015 ozone standard, expand NOx controls to industrial and transportation sectors, and analyze the environmental justice impacts of power plant emissions and trading programs.

GreenLatinos condemns the Trump Administration's Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule as a dangerous replacement for the Clean Power Plan. The organization highlights that the ACE rule's regulatory analysis predicted 300 to 1,500 additional deaths annually by 2030 due to increased air pollution. GreenLatinos emphasizes the disproportionate impact on Latinx and African American communities, noting that 40% of Latinos live within 30 miles of a power plant and Latinx children face a 40% higher likelihood of dying from asthma compared to non-Latinx white children.

The Clean Air Task Force challenges EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt on the repeal of the Clean Power Plan, the suspension of methane New Source Performance Standards for the oil and gas industry, and the rollback of air toxics policies, arguing these actions contradict the EPA's mandate to protect public health and rely on scientific evidence.

The Clean Air Task Force and 10 other organizations, following 19 states and cities, have requested that EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt recuse himself from the rulemaking process to repeal the Clean Power Plan. The groups argue that Pruitt's public assertions that the repeal is a "done deal" demonstrate a "closed mind," effectively turning the public comment period, which runs until late April, into a "pro forma exercise."

The World Resources Institute criticizes the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's proposal to repeal the Clean Power Plan, which aimed to reduce power plant carbon emissions by 32 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. The organization argues that the repeal disregards the U.S. obligation to mitigate global climate impacts and falsely suggests that such a move would revive the coal industry, which is declining due to the lower cost of natural gas and renewable energy.

The Clean Air Task Force asserts that President Trump's Executive Order to rescind the Climate Action Plan and related rules cannot be implemented by 'administrative fiat' due to the requirement for notice and comment rulemaking. The author argues that the Clean Power Plan is a cost-effective method for reducing emissions from power plants and that curbing methane emissions from the oil and gas industry is essential for public health and the climate, noting that methane is '70 times as potent a warmer as CO2' over its first 20 years.

The document describes the methodology for assessing the exposure of power plants and substations to flooding under a Category 3 hurricane scenario across five U.S. coastal regions. It utilizes the National Climate Assessment's Intermediate-High sea level rise scenario and the SLOSH model for storm surge, projecting risks through 2070. The analysis identifies a growing number of 'exposed' facilities, particularly in the Central Gulf Coast and Southeastern Florida, while noting limitations such as the exclusion of small distribution-level substations and the potential for local flood protection measures to mitigate risk.

The Clean Air Task Force (CATF) asserts that allowing interstate trading between states with separate, unmerged emission rate targets creates a perverse economic incentive to operate higher-emitting power plants in states with more lenient targets. This 'leakage' problem would displace lower-emitting generation, leading to higher overall system emissions and increased operating costs. CATF provides a quantitative example showing that relaxing the merger requirement could result in 20 percent more emissions and nearly 50 percent higher dispatch costs. The document further argues that this risk is widespread, noting that 26 states have target emission rates below the 1000 lbs./MWh new source performance standard for natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) units. Finally, it contends that limiting interstate trading to renewable energy credits (RECs) would not solve the problem, as renewable resources in states with higher targets would generate disproportionately more credits, allowing for greater continued use of fossil resources in more stringent states.

The statement criticizes the South African government for granting air quality standard postponements to Eskom, Sasol, and Engen on 24 February 2014. It asserts that these postponements effectively legalize toxic air, contradicting Section 24 of the constitution and a 1995 promise by President Mandela. The document highlights the severe health impacts of Eskom's pollution, estimating 20,000 premature deaths and an economic cost of R230 billion, while arguing that industries have had sufficient time since 2004 to implement pollution control technologies.

The document details a 1997 World Bank investment of $400 million to expand power plants in Singrauli, India, which led to significant displacement and pollution. Despite requests for inspection and an acknowledgment of deficiencies in resettlement and rehabilitation, the project proceeded, resulting in long-term respiratory illnesses and water pollution. By March 2014, the area was officially declared a Critically Polluted Area by the Indian government.

The document details the EPA's trajectory in regulating greenhouse gases (GHGs) following the 2007 Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA. It outlines key milestones including the 2009 Endangerment Finding, the development of fuel economy standards for light- and heavy-duty vehicles, and the introduction of the Clean Power Plan to reduce carbon pollution from power plants. The timeline also tracks critical judicial decisions that have both affirmed and limited the EPA's authority under the Clean Air Act.