What does the proposed rule do?

• Today, the EPA has released a Clean Power Proposed Rule that would reduce emissions from existing power plants by 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2030.  Carbon emissions will be reduced by about 730 million metric tonnes, which is equal to about the annual emissions from powering 65 million homes, over the half the homes in America.
• Pollutants that cause soot and smog, including particulate pollution, will also be reduced by 25 percent by 2030. 
• Coal pollution in the United States results in more than $100 billion annually in health costs and more 12,000 emergency room visits per year. The proposed reductions would reduce the health costs by up to $90 billion.
• According to the NRDC, as states work to meet final and interim goals, the proposed standards could save $37.4 billion for consumers on their electric bill over the next six years and create 274,000 new clean energy jobs.
• States are in the driver’s seat.  They will have the flexibility to meet state-based goals to lower the carbon-intensity of their power sector using a mix of strategies, including increased renewable energy and energy efficiency.
• The proposed rule would also set renewable energy and energy efficiency goals for each state including in the rule. Proposed renewable energy goals up to 25 percent of the state’s overall generation for states like Maine.  Energy efficiency goals up to 12 percent annual electricity savings for states like Connecticut. 

Impacts in Vermont:

• EPA is only proposing goals for states with fossil fuel-fired power plants.  Vermont is the only state not included in this rule, because it does not have any fossil fuel-fired generation.  Washington, D.C. is also not included. 
• Vermont can collaborate with states in the region to meet a multi-state goal and use the current Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) program.
• In the proposed rules published in the Federal Register this morning, Efficiency Vermont is cited as being a model energy efficiency utility that states should look to in developing their plans.  

What else needs to be done?

• Reject the Keystone XL pipeline.  Building this pipeline could potentially increase carbon emissions by 24 million metric tons per year and would increase our reliance on fossil fuels. 
• Pass legislation to impose a tax on carbon and methane emissions.  Your legislation, for example, would create millions of jobs by investing in a transformation of our energy system away from fossil fuel and into energy efficiency and sustainable energy sources such as wind, solar, geothermal and biomass.
• Continue to reduce emissions from the transportation sector.  The transportation sector is the second largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions in the United States with 28 percent of the total emissions.  Encouraging low-carbon biofuels and electric vehicles will help reduce these emissions. 
• End subsidies to fossil fuel companies. The U.S. is set to hand out over $100 billion in the next 10 years to hugely profitable fossil fuel companies.  Your legislation would end these subsidies.
• More aggressively increase in renewable energy and energy efficiency.  This action is needed to transform our energy sector away from fossil fuels to more sustainable sources.  A couple of weeks ago, Germany was able to successfully meet 74 percent of their daily load with renewable energy.  

Cost of Inaction

• According the National Climate Assessment that was released last week by the White House, global warming is already happening and could exceed 10 degrees Fahrenheit in the U.S. by the end of this century.
• Sea level has risen by at least seven inches around the globe and will continue to increase as the polar ice caps melt.  A few weeks ago, scientists reported that a large section of West Antarctica ice sheet is falling apart and continued is now unstoppable.
• This past year climate disruption fueled destructive superstorms, more extreme floods, widespread wildfires and record drought. In the last three years alone the damages from extreme weather events have exceeded $200 billion.
• Top military officials have warned that climate change is the top threat to the United States national security.  Increased conflict due to higher temperatures, extreme weather events, and resource availability will continue if don’t transform the way we use energy.
• Climate change also threatens the livelihood of industries that rely on the outdoors, such as winter tourism and the maple syrup industry in Vermont.  The northeast snow season could be cut in half by the end of the century, for example, according to the NRDC.