Energy and Environment

The Environmental Policy Project produces this weekly Policy Tracker: Energy and Environment to report on major national and state environmental issues, including land ownership, energy production, air and water regulations, endangered species, pollution and much more.

• August 2015 Energy and Environmental News
• 

  Federal judge halts EPA water rule in 13 states

• 

  Agriculture secretary announces over $200 million in federal spending for sage grouse

• 

  Congressional Democrats urge passage of climate legislation in California legislature

• 

  Western senators call for EPA investigation into Colorado mine spill

• 

  California initiative falls short in promising green jobs

• 

  Judge strikes down rule that allowed golden and bald eagles to be killed by wind turbines

• 

  Colorado mine spill fuels ongoing debate about the EPA

• 

  States ask federal court to put climate rules on hold

• 

  $37.2 million in federal grants announced for states' endangered species

• 

  Republican presidential candidates briefly talk energy and environmental policy at debates

• 

  Boehner announces support for repealing crude oil export ban

• 

  Industry groups begin advertising against EPA ozone rules

• 

  Obama releases official plan to regulate power plants

• 

  Florida proposes abandoning federal conservation plan for panthers

• 

  Scott Walker calls for shifting EPA powers to states

August 31, 2015[edit]

Federal judge halts EPA water rule in 13 states[edit]

Click to read more about waters of the United States and the federal rule.

In August 2015, Judge Ralph Erickson of the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota issued an order temporarily blocking the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) water rule—sometimes called the Waters of the United States rule or Clean Water Rule—in 13 states. The water rule would expand the EPA's authority to include approximately 60 percent of previously unregulated bodies of water such as streams and wetlands. Thirteen states sued the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (which implements the rule with the EPA) to halt the federal rule's implementation. Led by North Dakota Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem (R), who filed the request to stop the rule in the district court, the states argued that the rule was unnecessary and infringed upon the state governments' power to regulate their own waters.^[1][2][3]

Judge Erickson, who was appointed by George W. Bush in 2003, wrote that the EPA had exceeded the power granted to it under the Clean Water Act, the law that permits federal regulation of various bodies of water. In support of delaying the rule, Erickson wrote that the risk to the states from the rule's implementation was "both imminent and likely," and that the delay "was in the best interests of the public."^[1][2]

"This is a victory in the first skirmish, but it is only the first," said Stenehjem in response to the ruling.^[3]

The delay in the rule's implementation applied only to the 13 states involved in the case. The EPA announced it would continue to implement the rule in the other 37 states, some of which have joined other lawsuits challenging the EPA on the issue.^[4]

Joining North Dakota in the case were Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, South Dakota and Wyoming. Ten lawsuits challenging the rule had been filed as of August 2015.^[1][2]

Agriculture secretary announces over $200 million in federal spending for sage grouse[edit]

Click to read more on Ballotpedia's coverage of Endangered Species Policy and endangered species policy in the United States.

In August 2015, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack (D) announced that the federal government plans to spend over $200 million over the next three years to protect the greater sage grouse, a ground-dwelling bird found in 11 Western states. The sage grouse is a candidate for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act, but Vilsack said that the planned federal spending will occur regardless of whether the bird is listed as an endangered or threatened species.^[5]

Vilsack said about half of the approximately $211 million of federal spending will go toward the purchase of conservation easements, which are restrictions on specific land areas for conservation purposes. About $93 million of the total spending will go toward habitat restoration, and $18 million will go toward technical assistance to private landowners. The federal government plans to designate a total of 8 million acres as protected habitat for the bird by 2018, which would be roughly double the amount of protected habitat that existed as of August 2015.^[5]

The sage grouse was first proposed for placement on the endangered species list in 2010 but was not listed due to species that were of higher priority. The bird's populations span roughly 165 million acres total; its current population is estimated to be between 200,000 and 500,000 birds. The sage grouse population contained millions of birds at the beginning of the 20th century and has since declined steadily.^[6]

The bird's placement on the endangered species list could have an effect on land use, including energy production, in the states where the sage grouse is found. When a species is listed as threatened or endangered, both the species and its habitat are given federal protection, and potentially large amounts of land can end up off-limits to various activities or require significant actions or investments to guarantee the protection of species. The 11 states in which the sage grouse is located accounted for 28.4 percent of total U.S. energy production in 2012, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).^[7][8]

Congressional Democrats urge passage of climate legislation in California legislature[edit]

Click to read more about state government policies on climate change.

In August 2015, Democratic members of California's U.S. congressional delegation told California State Assembly members to pass two climate-related bills before the end of the state's legislative session on September 11, 2015. One bill would enact Governor Jerry Brown's (D) climate change goals into law, while the other bill would require cuts in California's oil consumption over a 15-year period.^[9]

U.S. Senators Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein wrote a letter to California legislators telling them to pass both bills, and U.S. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and 25 other congressional Democrats also supported the bills. Both pieces of legislation passed the California State Senate in summer 2015, but the state's lower chamber had not passed the bills as of August 2015.^[9]

"We need strong leadership at the state and local levels because deniers in Congress are still using snowballs to refute the overwhelming consensus of the global scientific community. I hope my friends in the California legislature can lead by example," Pelosi said in an official statement.^[9]

Brown's 2015 climate agenda, announced in April 2015, included a reduction in California's greenhouse gas emissions of 40 percent from 1990 levels by the year 2030. An executive order setting that target for the reductions was signed by Brown in April, but the proposed legislation would make the cuts mandatory by codifying them into California law. The second environmental bill would mandate reductions of the state's petroleum use over 15 years and would require more of the state's electricity to be generated from renewable energy.^[9][10]

California has been one of the most active states in enacting climate change policies, which have often included mandatory reductions in greenhouse gas emissions as well as greenhouse gas standards for motor vehicles. Ballotpedia's coverage of state government activities related to climate change can be found here.

August 24, 2015[edit]

Western senators call for EPA investigation into Colorado mine spill[edit]

Click to read more about environmental policy in the United States.

Six United States senators from Colorado, New Mexico and Utah sent a letter to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) asking for an investigation into the agency's role in a toxic spill that swept millions of gallons of polluted water from an abandoned gold mine in Colorado into the river systems of the three states. The letter was signed by three Republican senators (Orrin Hatch of Utah, Cory Gardner of Colorado and Mike Lee of Utah) and three Democratic senators (Michael Bennett of Colorado, Martin Heinrich of New Mexico and Tom Udall of New Mexico).^[11][12]

"It is our belief that there was a lack of transparency, coordination and communication in the events leading up to and following EPA's spill of approximately three million gallons of contaminated water into Cement Creek and the Animas River," the letter said. The senators also requested information about the work conducted by EPA employees and on the qualifications of EPA employees and contractors when the spill occurred on August 5, 2015.^[11]

Other answers sought about the spill included the EPA's specific legal obligations and whether the agency fulfilled them during its excavation of the mine, why the EPA delayed notifying local governments of the spill, and whether the EPA engaged in proper study of the mine's characteristics before it began performing its work.^[11]

"Including these questions in an [Office of the Inspector General (OIG)] report, along with a full investigation of the Gold King Mine accident, will help prevent future spills of this magnitude and ensure that recovery for tribal, state and local economies is expeditiously put on the best path forward," the letter concluded.^[11]

The EPA began its official investigation of the spill on August 17, 2015. Utah Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R), who chairs the House Overnight Committee, Utah Rep. Rob Bishop (R), who chairs the House Natural Resources Committee, and Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe (R), who chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, have also indicated that their respective committees would investigate the spill.^[13]

This spill came only months after a March 2015 spill in Greensboro, Georgia, when EPA-funded contractors were using a backhoe to level the future site of a low-income housing complex. The contractors struck a water main that sent contaminated water from a 19th-century cotton mill into a nearby creek, which eventually sent soil and water polluted with arsenic, chromium, lead and mercury into the Oconee River and Lake Oconee. Heavy rains have continued to wash contaminated soil into the creek. According to Dr. Dave Lewis, a scientist who had been with the EPA for 31 years before becoming a whistleblower, "lead in the soil at the project site is 20,000 times higher than federal levels established for drinking water ... [and] contains 34 hazardous chemicals, 30 of which are on the EPA’s list of priority pollutants because of 'high toxicity, persistence, lack of degradability, and harmful effects on living organisms.'"^[14][15]

California initiative falls short in promising green jobs[edit]

Click to read more about energy policy in California and California Proposition 39.

An investigation by The Associated Press into a 2012 California ballot measure to increase taxes on corporations in order to fund clean energy jobs found that less than 10 percent of the promised jobs had been created as of August 2015 and that more than half of the $297 million given to schools as of August 2015 went to energy consultants and auditors. The full report can be found here.^[16][17]

In November 2012, voters approved California Proposition 39, also known as the Clean Energy Jobs Act, an initiated state statute. The initiative promised to require out-of-state businesses to calculate their California income tax liability based on the percentage of their sales in the state. The state legislature then promised to dedicate $550 million in expected annual revenue over the next five years for projects that would "create energy efficiency and clean energy jobs" in the state, specifically promising to create more than 11,000 jobs per year.^{[18][19][20][21]}

According to The Associated Press, as of August 2015 only 1,700 jobs had been created between 2012 and 2015, while a nine-member state board dedicated to the plan's oversight and annual reporting had not met since the initiative's passage (the board has since announced it would meet in early September 2015). Of the expected $550 million in annual revenue promised by the initiative, only $381 million was raised in 2013, while only $279 million was raised in 2014.^[16][22]

Meanwhile, California's State Energy Commission—which, in conjunction with the oversight board, oversees the initiative's spending progress—said it did not have enough data about completed projects or estimated energy savings in California schools, since the schools are not required to report their data for up to 15 months after a project's completion. According to the commission's spokesperson, the program is still on track to fulfill its obligations despite the lack of school data reporting.^[16][17]

As of August 2015, California schools have applied for about half of the $973 million available since the initiative's passage, and of the $297 million that has been given to the schools, around $153 million went to "energy planning by consultants and auditors."^[16][17]

The Associated Press also reported that no completed projects existed in the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), which is the largest school district in California, containing over 1,100 schools; the district served 655,455 students in the 2012-2013 academic year. Two schools in the district had projects scheduled in summer 2015 involving retrofitted lighting and upgrades to heating and cooling systems. According to LAUSD spokeswoman Barbara Jones, no construction work had been done at either school as of August 2015.^[16][17]

Thomas Steyer, the founder and co-senior managing partner of Farallon Capital Management and a major donor to Democratic causes, was the main financial backer behind the initiative in 2012 and donated at least $30 million of his personal wealth to get the measure passed. You can read about him and other national policy influencers here.^[16]

Judge strikes down rule that allowed golden and bald eagles to be killed by wind turbines[edit]

Click to read more about endangered species in California.

On August 11, 2015, U.S. District Court Judge Lucy H. Koh ruled against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) in a case that "would have allowed the wind industry to legally kill bald eagles and golden eagles for up to three decades." The killing of birds and bats has been a recurring problem for the wind energy industry: A March 2013 study from the Wildlife Society Bulletin estimated that 573,000 birds and 880,000 bats are killed each year by wind turbines. These species include federally protected and endangered species such as golden and bald eagles and the Indiana bat.^{[23][24][25][26]}

The rule Judge Koh struck down allowed wind companies to apply for a permit from the FWS that allowed the taking of protected bald and golden eagles without the need to complete an Environmental Impact Statement. With the rule struck down, however, the Obama administration will instead have to pursue other paths to continue its promotion of wind energy while acknowledging that wind companies are violating the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (1918), the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (1940) and the Endangered Species Act (1973). In the past, the administration has dealt with this issue by not prosecuting wind energy companies for the animals that are killed; over the past two years, only two cases have been brought against wind companies for violating the previously mentioned acts. Finding a new path forward will be important for the administration because the new Clean Power Plan anticipates that three times as much wind power capacity will come online between 2014 and 2030.^[26][27]

August 17, 2015[edit]

Colorado mine spill fuels ongoing debate about the EPA[edit]

Click to read more about environmental policy in the United States.

In August 2015, waste from an abandoned gold mine in Colorado spilled into the Animas River, a tributary of the San Juan River, when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) attempted to remove wastewater from the mine. Crews supervised by the EPA were excavating the Gold King Mine's entrance when acidic wastewater started pouring into a creek that empties into the Animas River; it took about one hour for the spill to be contained. The EPA has reported that water samples taken from the creek contained heavy metals.^[28]

"We are very sorry for what happened. This is a huge tragedy," said Dave Ostrander, an emergency manager at the EPA's Region 8 office. The EPA has taken responsibility for the spill.^[28]

The agency has been widely criticized by different political organizations for the spill. Some groups accused the EPA of trying to downplay the extent and impact of the spill in its initial statement; these critics argued that the EPA's response underestimated the spill's effects on water quality and endangered species. The Center for Biological Diversity, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit group that advocates for government protection of endangered species, said that the "EPA's downplaying of potential impacts is troubling and raises deeper questions about the thoroughness of its mine-reclamation efforts." The junction of the Animas and San Juan rivers is a habitat for the Colorado pike minnow and the Razorback sucker, two fish listed as endangered species in Colorado. Meanwhile, Dan Kish, senior vice president for policy at the Institute for Energy Research, a nonprofit group that supports free market energy policies, said the EPA's response "raises serious questions about competency."^[29]

Republican lawmakers criticized the EPA's ability to address the spill and other environmental problems. Colorado Sen. Cory Gardner (R) called the EPA's actions a result of "a lack of communication and coordination" that "goes to the core competency of the EPA." Speaker of the House John Boehner (R) said the EPA's "slow response" was "very serious" and promised that congressional committees would provide "rigorous oversight" of the Obama administration's response to the spill.^[29][30]

At least one environmental group criticized the use of the spill as an opportunity to attack the EPA and its climate change regulations, including the Clean Power Plan (which targets emissions from power plants). A spokesman for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), an influential nonprofit organization that supports strong government action on the environment, said that the spill does not change the need for the EPA's climate regulations. "If anything, it's highlighted the risks we take and the price we pay when we allow environmental threats to fester," said Bob Deans, an NRDC spokesman.^[30]

Litigation against the EPA by individuals, communities and businesses affected by the spill is possible but unlikely, according to Justin Pidot, an environmental law professor at the University of Denver and former litigator for the U.S. Department of Justice. Pidot explained, "If the government engages in a pretty robust effort to address the problems, compensates those who have been injured and restores the environment to the extent practical. ... I don't think a judge would be all that sympathetic [to those suing the EPA]."^[29]

The spill is expected to spark an intense policy debate going into the 2016 presidential election, as Republican and Democratic candidates argue their differing positions on environmental policy and the EPA. An overview of the candidates' positions on energy and the environment can be found here.

States ask federal court to put climate rules on hold[edit]

Click to read more about the Clean Power Plan and the implementation of the Clean Air Act.

On August 13, 2015, attorneys general for 15 states filed a petition with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit asking the court to put the federal Clean Power Plan, a collection of regulations on greenhouse gas emissions of coal-fired power plants, on hold.^[31]

The regulations require that states submit compliance plans to the federal government by September 2016, but the plaintiffs argue that, without a stay, state governments will be "irreparably harmed" by the amount of time and resources needed for compliance, including required changes to power plants. "With this firm deadline, the Rule requires States to spend significant and irrecoverable sovereign resources now to begin preparing their State plans," the petition stated.^[32]

In addition to calling for a stay, the plaintiffs have also argued that the plan goes beyond what Congress intended when it passed the Clean Air Act, which is cited as the EPA's legal authority for the regulations. "The Clean Air Act was never intended to be used to create this type of regulatory regime, and it flies in the face of the powers granted to states under the U.S. Constitution," said West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey (R), who has led the lawsuit on behalf of the state governments.^[31]

A key debate over the lawsuit has centered on the specific judges chosen for the case. An April 2015 federal lawsuit on an earlier version of the regulation was heard at the same federal court by a three-judge panel, which included Judges Brett Kavanaugh, Thomas Griffith and Karen Henderson, all of whom were appointed by Republican presidents. The states' newest petition explicitly cited these three judges as those best suited to hear the case. "In short, considerations of judicial efficiency militate strongly against requiring a new panel to become familiar with these arguments. ... The Murray and West Virginia panel [that heard the earlier case] is by far the best positioned to rule on the Emergency Petition within the requested timeframe," the petition read. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals is considered to have wide discretion in how it chooses panels of judges.^[32]

The judges rejected that early lawsuit mostly on procedural grounds since the regulations had not then been finalized. This new lawsuit is expected to go before the U.S. Supreme Court, like other high-profile environmental law cases such as Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency (2015).^[32]

Meanwhile, environmental groups such as the Sierra Club criticized the state's lawsuit as an attack on environmental protections and a drain on state resources. "These attorneys general are wasting taxpayer dollars on a junk lawsuit just to attack life-saving clean-air safeguards," said Joanne Spalding, who serves as climate counsel for the Sierra Club.^[31]

The coalition of states joining the lawsuit included Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Wisconsin, West Virginia and Wyoming. Two states, Florida and Michigan, were not involved in the April 2015 lawsuit.^[33]

$37.2 million in federal grants announced for states' endangered species[edit]

Click to read more from Ballotpedia's Endangered Species Policy Project.

In August 2015, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) announced $37.2 million in federal grants to 20 states for endangered and threatened species conservation, including the acquisition of various species' habitats. A complete list of the grants can be found here. As of August 2015, the Fish and Wildlife Service had funded approximately $48.7 million in federal grants in fiscal year 2015 under four grant programs.^[34][35]

"These grants are one of many tools available under the Endangered Species Act, and we look forward to providing continued guidance and support for these programs," said FWS director Dan Ashe. Provided under the federal Endangered Species Act, the grants are typically used by state governments to acquire and protect habitats for federally protected species, more than half of which inhabit private land. States often work with private landowners and conservation advocacy groups. In total, 44 projects will be funded in the $37.2 million worth of federal grants.^[34]

Of the $37.2 million, more than $3.3 million will go to Colorado, Montana and Utah. Florida will receive $750,000 to continue the creation of structures alongside the state's beaches in order to mitigate impacts to sea turtles, beach mice and shorebirds. Around $828,000 will go to preserving habitats of the Gunnison and greater sage grouses, which are land-dwelling birds found in the Western United States. The Gunnison sage grouse was listed as a "threatened" species in 2014; the Fish and Wildlife Service is expected to announce the sage grouse's endangered or threatened status by September 2015.^[34][36]

August 10, 2015[edit]

Republican presidential candidates briefly talk energy and environmental policy at debates[edit]

Click to read more about the 2016 presidential candidates and their positions on energy and the environment.

Several 2016 Republican presidential candidates mentioned climate change, energy and environmental policy at both a candidate forum and a prime-time debate hosted by Fox News on August 6, 2015.

At the Republican candidate forum, when asked whether Republicans could trust him given his cooperation on climate issues with Democrats and President Barack Obama, South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham said that he would focus on "energy independence" rather than adopt federal regulations on carbon emissions. "When it comes to fossil fuels, we're going to find more here and use less. ... The choice between a weak economy and a strong environment is a false choice, that is not the choice I'll offer America." Graham has acknowledged in the past that he believes human activity is a cause of climate change but has distanced himself from policies traditionally supported by Democrats, such as a cap-and-trade system.^[37]

Former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore said that "big regulations like the EPA" have been "drags on the economy." Former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina said that one of her first orders as president would be to repeal "this latest round of EPA regulations," referring to the EPA's Clean Power Plan, a federal rule requiring greenhouse gas reductions from coal-fired power plants.^[37]

At the two-hour prime-time debate, the candidates only briefly mentioned energy and environmental policy but distinguished themselves on some of the issues. Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush criticized Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton for her refusal to give a position on the Keystone XL pipeline, which requires federal approval from the U.S. State Department, in which Clinton served as secretary. "Give me a break. Of course we're for it," Bush said, referring to the pipeline as "an economic driver" he would approve as president.^[38]

Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee said he supported transferring the EPA's regulatory power to the states, a position also supported by Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker. Walker also mentioned he would "reign [sic] in all the out of control regulations, [and] put in place an all-of-the-above energy policy."^[38]

Ballotpedia's full coverage of the forum and debate can be found here.

Boehner announces support for repealing crude oil export ban[edit]

Click to read more about the crude oil export ban.

In July 2015, Speaker of the House John Boehner (R) announced his support to end the crude oil export ban, a 1975 prohibition on the exportation of most crude oil from the United States to other countries.^[39]

"I would support lifting the ban and hopefully we can work together on a bipartisan fashion to move our energy policies into this century," Boehner said at a press conference. Boehner said repealing the ban would help lower gas prices and create jobs.^[39]

Congress first passed the ban to encourage domestic crude oil production and discourage importing the oil from other countries. At the time, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) imposed a ban on petroleum exports to the United States, causing oil prices to increase.^[40][41]

The condition of the oil market in 2015 is vastly different from its condition when the ban was passed, as the use of hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling has made the United States a top oil and natural gas producer. This change has led some to call on Congress to end the ban.

Proponents of repealing the ban have argued that it would reduce the U.S. trade deficit, help create jobs, and drive domestic energy production and economic growth. Opponents of repeal have argued that lifting the ban could lead to higher gasoline prices and more greenhouse gas emissions.^[41]

Groups supporting repeal include the Brookings Institution, the Council on Foreign Relations, and an oil and natural gas industry group called the American Petroleum Institute. Meanwhile, the debate over lifting the ban has created an unlikely alliance, with both U.S. refineries and related industry groups joining forces with environmental groups and unions. Those in support of the ban include an American refinery group called Consumers and Refiners United for Domestic Energy, the United Steelworkers Union, Sierra Club Executive Director Mike Brune, the Center for American Progress and Oil Change International.^{[42][43][44][45][46]}

Industry groups begin advertising against EPA ozone rules[edit]

Click to read more about ground-level ozone standards and the implementation of the Clean Air Act.

In July 2015, industry groups began advertising against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) stricter regulations on ground-level ozone, which is formed when nitrogen oxide combines with other organic chemicals in the atmosphere.^[47][48]

The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), the largest manufacturing organization in the United States, released television and online ads criticizing the EPA's proposed ozone standards, which are enforced as part of the federal Clean Air Act, as overreaching and unnecessary. The EPA has proposed lowering the ozone limit from 75 parts per billion (ppb), which was instituted in 2008, to between 65 ppb and 70 ppb during an eight-hour period. According to NAM, the stricter ozone standards would force areas with little ozone to meet unreasonable standards, and even national parks would be considered non-compliant. "If national parks can’t comply, how can your community?" one television ad asked.^[47][48]

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a leading business group, also opposes the EPA's proposed standards, arguing that they would be too costly. The American Petroleum Institute, an oil and natural gas industry group, has announced a similar advertising strategy to persuade state and local governments about what it views as the negative outcomes of stricter ozone rules.^[47][48]

The EPA has argued that strengthening ozone standards would produce health benefits, especially for people most at risk from ozone in the air, such as asthmatics, children and older adults. Opponents of stricter standards have argued that they would result in fewer energy jobs and higher energy costs. The EPA is expected to finalize its ozone standards by October 2015.^[47][48]

August 3, 2015[edit]

Obama releases official plan to regulate power plants[edit]

Click to read more about the Clean Power Plan.

On August 3, 2015, President Barack Obama released the final version of the Clean Power Plan, a federal rule expanding the scope of the Clean Air Act to reduce CO₂ emissions from coal-fired power plants in every state.^[49][50]

The final version of the rule contains stricter caps on power plant emissions than the previous proposal, requiring states to reduce emissions by 32 percent from 2005 levels before 2030 (the original proposal required a 30 percent reduction). States have until 2018 to submit their plans to comply with the federal rule, which contains specific emission targets for each state. Otherwise, a federal plan will be imposed on the states by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). States have until 2022 to implement their plans fully.^[49]

Proponents of the plan have argued that greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide have been a cause of climate change and require stricter regulation of the energy sector. Meanwhile, opponents have said that the plan will raise electricity prices and reduce jobs. The EPA has said that the plan will cost between $7.3 billion and $8.8 billion each year, although the actual costs will remain unknown until the states submit their plans.^[50][51]

The plan has been challenged by 15 states in federal court as of August 2015; these states have argued that the plan is an unlawful expansion of the Clean Air Act. In contrast, 11 states, the District of Columbia and New York City have voiced their approval of the plan.^[52]

Meanwhile, United States Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has called on state governments to refuse adopting any program to implement the Clean Power Plan before the judiciary has decided its legality.

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said she supported the Clean Power Plan on August 2, 2015, stating that the plan is consistent with her energy policy proposals. Republican presidential candidates Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush said they opposed the plan, both labeling it as too costly and harmful to job growth.^[53]

The full text of the plan can be found here.

Florida proposes abandoning federal conservation plan for panthers[edit]

Click to read more about the Endangered Species Act and endangered species in Florida.

In July 2015, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, the state agency responsible for managing Florida's endangered and threatened species, proposed abandoning a federal conservation plan to protect the Florida panther, which has been listed as endangered since 1967. The proposal would ultimately eliminate state funding and reduce staff for the federal plan, leaving the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to fund and implement it as the state adopts its own program.^[54][55]

The commission's proposal said that panthers have been responsible for the deaths of livestock, pets and cattle on commercial ranches. A state program reimbursing animal owners for losses from panthers paid out a total of $6,000 since 2004. As of July 2015, state estimates put Florida's panther population between 100 and 180 cats, which is below the federal plan's goal to raise populations to 230 before the FWS would consider removing federal protection. Motorists hitting the cats on the road are responsible for roughly two-thirds of all panther deaths, the Florida commission estimates.^[54]

According to the commission's official statement, "The current recovery criteria are aspirational rather than practical in nature. Under this federal recovery plan, Florida will never be able to accomplish the goals necessary to recover panther populations to a point where the subspecies can be delisted."^[54][55]

Advocates who favor increased protection for endangered species have heavily criticized the proposal. For example, a group called the Defenders of Wildlife has complained that limiting conservation efforts will harm panthers. According to the group's Florida program director, the proposal "attempts to redefine recovery in terms of social tolerance rather than biology."^[56]

According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, federal funding for the Florida panther totaled $1,574,120 in fiscal year 2013, while Florida state funding totaled $1,075,274 in fiscal year 2013, for a total of $2,649,394 in government spending that year. In fiscal year 2012, federal funding totaled $1,384,410, while the Florida state government spent $719,738 that year.^[57][58]

Scott Walker calls for shifting EPA powers to states[edit]

Click to read more about 2016 presidential candidates and their positions on energy and the environment.

Republican presidential candidate and Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker said he supported transferring the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) main responsibilities to state governments rather than eliminating the federal agency altogether.^[59][60]

In an interview with the Washington Examiner, Walker said he would shift the EPA's power and funding "out of Washington and basically just leave in place an umbrella organization. ..." that allows individual state agencies to enforce environmental laws and negotiate with other states over environmental protection.^[60]

"Given the opportunity, I think states can do it all across America much better than the federal government," Walker said.^[60]

Most of the EPA's activities involve enforcing federal environmental laws such as the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act and other laws. In an official letter to the White House in May 2015, Walker said the Clean Power Plan, a major EPA rule, was "riddled with inaccuracies, questionable assumptions and deficiencies" that made the plan "unworkable" for his state of Wisconsin, which is also one of 15 states suing the federal government over the plan.^[61]

Walker's proposal received criticism from George Meyer, who served between 1993 and 2011 (when Walker became governor) as secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. This agency would receive the bulk of the EPA's responsibilities under Walker's plan and is responsible for environmental policy in the state. Meyer, an executive director of the Wisconsin Wildlife Federation (a conservation advocacy group) as of August 2015, said Walker's plan would encourage states to remove environmental regulations to compete with other states.^[59]

A complete profile of Walker's 2016 presidential campaign, including his positions on other policy issues, can be found here.

See also[edit]

• Environmental policy in the United States
• Environmental Policy
• Energy policy in the United States
• State environmental policy pages
• Energy Policy

Footnotes[edit]

v • e The Policy Tracker: Energy and Environment States Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming Archives January 2015 • February 2015 • March 2015 • April 2015 • May 2015 • June 2015 • July 2015 • August 2015

v • e Environmental Policy Background Environmental policy in the United States • Clean Air Act • Clean Water Act • Conservation • Endangered Species Act • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency • Enforcement at the EPA • Glossary of environmental terms • Energy and environmental news Energy and environmental news January 2015 • February 2015 • March 2015 • April 2015 • May 2015 • June 2015 • July 2015 • August 2015 • September 2015 • October 2015 • November 2015 • December 2015 Environmental terms Air pollutants • Air Quality Index • BLM grazing permit • Carbon dioxide • Carbon footprint • Clean Air Act • Clean Water Act • Climate change • ConservAmerica • Cross State Air Pollution Rule • Deep ecology • Ecology • Endangered species • Implementation of the Endangered Species Act • Environmental chemistry • Environmental engineering • Environmental health • Environmental restoration • Environmental science • Federal land • Fracking • Greenhouse effect • Greenhouse gas • Ground-level ozone standards • Ground water • Hazardous air pollutant • Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change • Keystone XL • Mercury and air toxics standards • Municipal solid waste • National Ambient Air Quality Standards • National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System • National Priorities List of Superfund sites • National Wildlife Federation • Natural resources • Nonpoint source of water pollution • Oil • Ozone • Pesticide • Petroleum • Point source of water pollution • Public water system • Radioactive waste • Renewable energy resources • Renewable Portfolio Standards • Solar energy • State park • Superfund • Traditional energy resources • U.S. Bureau of Land Management • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency • • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service • U.S. Forest Service • U.S. Geological Survey • Wastewater treatment • Water quality criteria • Wetland • Wilderness Act • Wilderness Society • Wind energy Endangered species terms Candidate species • Critical habitat • Delisting • Distinct population segment • Endangered species • Listed species • Listing a species • Listing petition • Species recovery • Taking a species Environmental policy by state Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming Endangered species policy Costs of listing a species • Delisting a species • Endangered Species Act litigation • Endangered species policy in the United States • Endangered Species Act litigation • History of the Endangered Species Act • Private property and the Endangered Species Act • Science and the Endangered Species Act • Success rate of the Endangered Species Act • Transparency and the Endangered Species Act Endangered species policy by state Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming Environmental statistics Payments in lieu of taxes • Land ownership by state • Grazing permits on BLM lands • Federal land ownership by state • BLM oil and gas permits by state • Environmental spending in the 50 states • Greenhouse gas emissions by state • Superfund sites in the United States • National Park Visitor Spending Effects Report Endangered species statistics Endangered species by state • Endangered animals by state • Endangered plants by state • Delisted species • Top 20 federally funded species • Land acquisition funding for endangered species • Federal endangered species grants by state