December, 04 2012, 12:56pm EDT

For Immediate Release
Contact:
Jake Thompson, 202-289-2373, jthompson@nrdc.org, or Elizabeth Heyd, 202-289-2424, eheyd@nrdc.org
Innovative NRDC Plan Featuring Federal-State Partnership Saves Americans More Than $25 Billion in Climate and Health Costs While Unleashing Billions In Clean Energy Investments
Experts at the Natural Resources Defense Council today unveiled a groundbreaking proposal to sharply cut carbon pollution from America's power plants, featuring a unique federal-state partnership and flexibility for plant owners that will hold down costs and improve Americans' health.
WASHINGTON
Experts at the Natural Resources Defense Council today unveiled a groundbreaking proposal to sharply cut carbon pollution from America's power plants, featuring a unique federal-state partnership and flexibility for plant owners that will hold down costs and improve Americans' health.
NRDC's innovative proposal calls for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to use its authority under the Clean Air Act to set standards for existing power plants--America's largest source of carbon emissions that fuel climate change--that will cut millions of tons of carbon pollution, save thousands of lives and create thousands of clean energy jobs.
The proposal enables states and electricity plant owners to use a wide range of existing technologies, including energy efficiency and renewable energy sources, to meet carbon pollution standards in the most cost-effective way. States would also have broad flexibility to design their own plans to meet the standards.
"The President put climate change on the national agenda, and NRDC's plan shows how the United States can make big reductions in carbon pollution that drive climate change, with a flexible approach that promotes clean energy investments and delivers big benefits for Americans' health," said Peter Lehner, NRDC's Executive Director. "This year's ravaging heat waves, drought, wildfires and Superstorm Sandy underscore why the nation must tackle head-on the biggest source of dangerous carbon pollution now."
NRDC's proposal shows how the United States can dramatically reduce pollution from power plants that are responsible for 40 percent of the nation's carbon pollution.
"We are overturning the conventional wisdom that reducing carbon pollution through the Clean Air Act would be ineffective and expensive," said Dan Lashof, NRDC's Director of Climate and Clean Air programs, and a principal author of the plan. "We show that the EPA can work with states and power companies to make large pollution reductions, by setting system-wide standards, rather than smokestack-by-smokestack ones, and by giving power companies and states the freedom to choose the most cost-saving means of compliance.
"The impact is huge: our proposal would eliminate hundreds of millions of tons of carbon pollution, save thousands of lives and stimulate a surge in clean energy and energy efficiency investments," Lashof said, "all at a lower cost than many would expect."
NRDC outlined its proposal at the National Press Club in Washington. Joining Lehner and Lashof to discuss the power plant plan was Dallas Burtraw, who is Darius Gaskins Senior Fellow at Resources for the Future. Also participating in the event was Franz Litz, Executive Director of the Energy & Climate Center at Pace Law School. Litz advises states on climate change and energy policy matters, and was instrumental in creating the northeast states' Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative.
Using the same sophisticated analytical tools relied on by both industry and the EPA, NRDC analysis shows the plan would:
- Cut carbon pollution from the nation's existing power plants 26 percent by 2020 and 34 percent by 2025.
- Make large reductions in other dangerous pollutants, such as sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, from existing power plants.
- At a cost of about $4 billion in 2020, save Americans between $25 billion and $60 billion in lives saved, avoided illnesses and reduced climate change.
- Save 3,600 lives, prevent more than 23,000 asthma attacks, avoid more than 2,300 emergency room visits and prevent nearly 1.2 million restricted activity and lost work days.
- Stimulate investments of more than $90 billion in energy efficiency and renewable energy sources in the next eight years.
- Create thousands of jobs, boost local and state economies, and move America toward a clean energy, clean air future.
NRDC commissioned ICF International to analyze the proposal using the company's proprietary Integrated Planning Model (IPM(r)). The utility industry and the EPA often use the IPM(r) model to determine cost-effective ways of meeting the nation's electricity needs, and to assess the effects of new standards. NRDC provided the depiction of the plan and other assumptions required for the analysis.
Under NRDC's proposal, the EPA would use Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act to set state-specific carbon emission rates that reflect the diversity of the nation's electricity sector and fuel mix. Broad compliance flexibility would enable power plant owners and states to reduce emissions through cost-effective means that could be accomplished by:
- Reducing an individual plant's carbon emissions by improving combustion efficiency, burning cleaner fuels or installing carbon capture and storage.
- Shifting generation from high-emitting to lower- or zero-emitting plants. Lower emitting sources such as gas, wind and solar would earn credits that other plants could use, to reduce average emissions rates.
- Expanding energy efficiency. State energy-efficiency programs could earn credits for avoiding power generation and its pollution. Generators could purchase those credits to use toward their emissions targets.
- States would have additional freedom to adopt alternative approaches-such as those already adopted by California, the Northeast states, and Colorado--as long as they are equally effective in cutting emissions.
NRDC developed its proposal on the heels of two U.S. Supreme Court rulings, in 2007 and 2011, that determined it is EPA's job under the Clean Air Act to curb dangerous carbon pollution from the nation's vehicles and power plants. To date, the Administration has taken important steps by setting fuel efficiency standards for mobile sources such as cars and trucks, and proposing standards for new power plants. But the biggest pollution source remains the hundreds of existing power plants.
"We know where the pollution is; now we just have to go after it," Lashof said.
The report is posted here: https://www.nrdc.org/air/pollution-standards/
NRDC works to safeguard the earth--its people, its plants and animals, and the natural systems on which all life depends. We combine the power of more than three million members and online activists with the expertise of some 700 scientists, lawyers, and policy advocates across the globe to ensure the rights of all people to the air, the water, and the wild.
(212) 727-2700LATEST NEWS
Trump Social Security Chief Applauds Budget Bill That Will Harm Social Security's Finances
"The Social Security Administration put out a statement celebrating a bill that would lead to faster insolvency of the Social Security Trust Fund."
Jul 04, 2025
U.S. President Donald Trump's handpicked Social Security chief issued a statement Thursday applauding the passage of a Republican reconciliation bill that analysts say would negatively impact the New Deal program's finances.
Social Security Commissioner Frank Bisignano called the Republican legislation, which Trump is expected to sign on Friday, a "historic step forward for America's seniors" and a reaffirmation of the president's "promise to protect Social Security."
But experts warned in the lead-up to the bill's passage that its massive tax cuts would bring forward the date at which Social Security will no longer be able to pay out full benefits in the absence of legislative solutions.
"By raising the standard deduction for all filers, and raising it even higher for some seniors, fewer Social Security beneficiaries will pay taxes on their benefits, and those who do will pay lower rates," said Kathleen Romig and Gbenga Ajilore of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. "Raising the standard deduction would deliver little to no benefit to lower- and moderate-income families while reducing income into Social Security's trust funds."
The Social Security Administration put out a statement celebrating a bill that would lead to faster insolvency of the Social Security Trust Fund pic.twitter.com/aRhLfcRiIv
— Bobby Kogan (@BBKogan) July 4, 2025
According to the latest Social Security Board of Trustees report—released ahead of the reconciliation bill's passage—the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund will be able to pay out 100% of benefits until 2033. Thereafter, if lawmakers don't act, the fund will be able to pay out 77% of total scheduled benefits.
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB), a conservative think tank, estimated in an analysis released last month that the Republican reconciliation package would accelerate the depletion of Social Security and Medicare's trust funds by a year. Compared to current law, the GOP measure would also result in "even deeper" cuts to Social Security benefits after the trust fund depletion date, the analysis projected.
Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.), a leading champion of Social Security Expansion in Congress, highlighted CRFB's findings in a video posted to social media a day before House Republicans secured final passage of the reconciliation bill.
"We have to act now, not just to protect Social Security but to expand the benefits," said Larson. "It needs to be protected, it needs to be enhanced—not cut and diminished."
Keep ReadingShow Less
NYT Runs Hit Piece on Mamdani Based on Tip From Proponent of 'Race Science'
Reports from multiple outlets show the Times is vastly underselling its source's extreme views on race.
Jul 04, 2025
The New York Times on Thursday published a story questioning New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani's past statements about his racial background based on a tip it received from a proponent of "race science."
The Times piece in question focused on Mamdani's college application to Columbia University in which he listed both "Asian" and "Black or African American" as his race.
Although both of Mamdani's parents are of Indian descent, he was born in the African country of Uganda and lived there for the first five years of his life. Mamdani told the Times that he checked the box on the application for "Black or African American" because he considers himself an American who was born in Africa. He emphasized that he does not identify as Black and argued that he found it difficult to express the complexity of his racial background given the options on the application.
However, what is stirring controversy about the Times piece isn't so much its content but the source of its information. The Times acknowledges that the information on Mamdani was culled from a large hack of a Columbia database and that it received a copy of Mamdani's application from "an intermediary who goes by the name Crémieux on Substack and X," whom it describes as "an academic who opposes affirmative action and writes often about I.Q. and race."
A report from The Guardian's Jason Wilson published earlier this year shows that the Times is vastly underselling its source's extreme views on race. As Wilson documented, the "Crémieux" cited by the Times is a man named Jordan Lasker, whose writings regularly defend the work of "race scientists" who use I.Q. test results to argue that Black people are mentally inferior to other races.
"Crémieux runs a Substack also featuring posts on the supposed relationships between race and I.Q.," Wilson explained. "A prominently featured post there seeks to defend the argument that average national IQs vary by up to 40 points, with countries in Europe, North America, and East Asia at the high end and countries in the global south at the low end, and several African countries purportedly having average national IQs at a level that experts associate with mental impairment."
Another report from Talking Points Memo's Hunter Walker found that Lasker has regularly posted about a racial "I.Q. gap" and has even suggested that there are "genetic pathways of crime." On his X account, Lasker has mused about the differences in brain sizes between Black and white Americans and between women and men more generally.
Brandon McEuen, a historian at Wayne State University who specializes in teaching about the history of the eugenics movement, slammed the Times for not only relying on Lasker as its source for the story on Mamdani but also for granting him anonymity.
"The decision to keep Lasker anonymous is ridiculous since his name has already been published in other outlets that don't provide softballs for eugenicists," he wrote on his Bluesky account.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Sanders Says Every Republican Who Backed Trump-GOP Budget 'Must Pay a Price at the Ballot Box'
"They do not deserve to be re-elected and they must be defeated," said Sen. Bernie Sanders.
Jul 04, 2025
As communities across the United States braced for impact after congressional Republicans approved the biggest Medicaid and nutrition assistance cuts in the nation's history, Sen. Bernie Sanders said Thursday that every lawmaker who supported the budget legislation "must pay a price at the ballot box" in the 2026 midterms and beyond.
"This bill includes the largest cut ever to Medicaid in order to pay for the largest tax break for billionaires that we have ever seen," Sanders (I-Vt.), who is working to recruit progressive candidates for office, said after the House passed the legislation, sending it to President Donald Trump's desk.
"Make no mistake about it: This bill is a death sentence for working-class and low-income Americans," said Sanders.
While some GOP lawmakers in the House and Senate voiced concerns about the bill's massive cuts to Medicaid and other programs as the measure moved through Congress, the legislation ultimately garnered near-unanimous support from the Republican caucus when it came time for the final votes. Just three out of 53 Republican senators and two out of 220 GOP representatives voted against the completed bill.
Analysts and advocates expect the legislation to inflict major damage across the country, shuttering rural hospitals, stripping health coverage and food aid from millions, raising costs for Medicare recipients, and devastating local economies.
Some of the pain will be concentrated in swing districts currently represented by Republican supporters of the budget package. For example, 64% of Rep. David Valadao's (R-Calif.) constituents in California's 22nd Congressional District rely on Medicaid.
Valadao is one of 10 Republicans targeted by an ad push that the advocacy group Protect Our Care launched following Thursday's vote in the House. The other targeted lawmakers are Reps. David Schweikert (R-Ariz.), Young Kim (R-Calif.), Ken Calvert (R-Calif.), Nick LaLota (R-N.Y.), Andrew Garbarino (R-N.Y.), Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.), Ryan Mackenzie (R-Pa.), Rob Bresnahan (R-Pa.), and Dan Newhouse (R-Wash.).
Brad Woodhouse, president of Protect Our Care, said in a statement that "these Republicans just voted for the largest healthcare cuts in history in order to fund tax breaks for billionaires and big corporations, and we're going to make sure that every single one of their constituents knows it."
"These Republicans betrayed their constituents and working Americans' healthcare for billionaire tax cuts," Woodhouse added, "and we're ready to go from the grassroots to the airwaves until every last one of them is held accountable."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular