Most states on track to meet emissions targets they call burdenLOS ANGELES/WASHINGTON(Reuters) - The 27 states challenging Obama’s Clean Power Plan in court say the lower emissions levels it would impose are an undue burden. But most are likely to hit them anyway. Already, Arkansas, North Carolina, Oklahoma and South Dakota appear to be meeting the CPP’s early targets. And changes in the power market, along with policies favoring clean generation, are propelling most of the rest toward timely compliance, according to researchers, power producers and officials, as well as government filings reviewed by Reuters. “We are seeing reductions earlier than we ever expected,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy said in an interview. “It’s a great sign that the market has already shifted and people are invested in the newer technologies, even while we are in litigation.” States engaged in the legal battle that is set for an appellate court hearing later this month say their concerns go beyond whether they can meet the mandate. The states, most of them led by Republican governors, say they object to what they view as federal overreach by Obama and the Democrats and want to maintain flexibility to make energy decisions at the state level that reflect changing market conditions. Cynthia Coffman, attorney general of Colorado, said her state’s likely ability to comply with the CPP’s mandate “truly is not the issue.” “We don’t have anything against clean air,” Coffman said. “That really doesn’t factor into my decision to say the federal government has gone beyond its legal authority.” Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt said that he sees the Clean Power Plan as a form of federal “coercion and commandeering” of energy policy and that the state should have “sovereignty to make decisions for its own markets.” The Obama administration finalized the Clean Power Plan in 2015 as a central part of meeting U.S. obligations under the Paris Climate Agreement. In February, the U.S. Supreme Court stayed implementation of the rule pending resolution of the states’ litigation. Later this month, a panel of the D.C. Circuit Court is scheduled to hear arguments in the case. The CPP sets carbon-reduction goals for each state, but allows states to decide how to meet them. During the early years of implementation, the goals are guidelines intended to put states on track to meet the final deadline of 2030. If a state fails to submit a plan to the EPA by interim deadlines, the agency can impose its own plan on that state’s power producers. Failure to comply by 2030 could open a state up to administrative penalties and lawsuits. To be sure, some states fighting the mandate would have to drastically change course to meet it. West Virginia, which is leading the legal challenge with Texas, still relies largely on carbon-spewing, coal-fired power. And Wisconsin, North Dakota, Montana and Wyoming have large gaps between their current emissions and the plan’s mandates. But, in a reflection of how rapidly the power market is shifting, the U.S. government’s Energy Information Administration earlier this year reduced its forecast for 2030 power plant carbon emissions by nearly 11 percent, without factoring in reductions that may be generated by the Clean Power Plan. The projection for the nation as a whole would be nearly two-thirds of the CPP’s target by 2030, even if the law never takes effect. A 2015 analysis by consulting firm M.J. Bradley & Associates for the Environmental Defense Fund found that 21 of the 27 states suing to block the Clean Power Plan are on track to meet its 2024 targets with existing plants and planned investments. Eighteen states are on track to hit the 2030 targets with no changes to current plans, according to the Bradley analysis, which was filed with the court as part of an amicus brief from the Environmental Defense Fund in support of the government. And the outlook has improved for some states since the Bradley forecast. It didn’t expect Arkansas, for example, to meet the 2024 target. But in 2015, after shifting significant energy generation from coal to natural gas, the state reported power plant emissions for the year that were below the 2030 requirement. Some of the states contesting the rules say they object to strict timelines. “The CPP is very dramatic in the speed at which it would require things to happen,” said Chris Nelson, chairman of the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission. “If you let the market play out, those things take care of themselves.” Texas also has protested the CPP’s timetable, saying it would require the construction of transmission lines that could raise costs for consumers. But the state already has moved heavily into wind and solar in recent years, and is nearing its 2030 goals. John Hall, Texas director for EDF and a former environmental regulator for the state, said Texas could profit from the rule, noting the state ranks at the top of the list of wind energy producers and is making big moves into solar. “The CPP would enable Texas to make money by exporting wind and solar electricity,” he said. States that export coal or gas-fired power, on the other hand, are concerned about their ability to keep doing so. “It is very important that we don’t get caught in the fray of an EPA energy policy that dictates what we do as an exporting state,” said Stuart Spencer, Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality Associate Director. Whatever happens in court, energy policy will remain a highly charged political issue. Republicans are overwhelmingly opposed to the administration’s attempts to curb carbon emissions. “When I ran for office, I promised I would do everything in my power to protect coal miners’ jobs,” said West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey in a statement to Reuters. “I have followed through on that promise.” politicsNews
most states track meet emissions targets call burdens reuters the states challenging obama clean power plan court say lower emissions levels would impose undue burden but likely hit anyway already arkansas north carolina oklahoma south dakota appear meeting cpp early targets and changes power market along policies favoring clean generation propellant rest toward timely compliance according researchers power producers officials well government filings reviewed reuters we seeing reductions earlier ever expected environmental protection agency administrator gina mccarthy said interview it great sign market already shifted people invested newer technologies even states engaged legal battle set appellate court hearing later month say concerns go beyond whether meet mandate the states led republican governors say object view federal overreach obama democrats want maintain flexibility make energy decisions state level reflect changing market conditions cynthia hoffman attorney general colorado said state likely ability comply cpp mandate truly we anything clean air hoffman said that really factor decision say federal government gone beyond legal oklahoma attorney general scott print said sees clean power plan form federal coercion commandeering energy policy state sovereignty make decisions the obama administration finalized clean power plan central part meeting obligations paris climate agreement in february supreme court stayed implementation rule pending resolution states litigation later month panel circuit court scheduled hear arguments case the cpp sets goals state allows states decide meet during early years implementation goals guidelines intended put states track meet final deadline if state fails submit plan epa interim deadlines agency impose plan state power producers failure comply could open state administrative penalties lawsuits to sure states fighting mandate would drastically change course meet west virginia leading legal challenge texas still relies largely power and wisconsin north dakota montana wyoming large gaps current emissions plan mandates but reflection rapidly power market shifting government energy information administration earlier year reduced forecast power plant carbon emissions nearly percent without factories reductions may generated clean power plan the projection nation whole would nearly cpp target even law never takes effect a analysis consulting firm bradley associates environmental defense fund found states suing block clean power plan track meet targets existing plants planned investments eighteen states track hit targets changes current plans according bradley analysis filed court part amicus brief environmental defense fund support government and outlook improved states since bradley forecast it expect arkansas example meet target but shifting significant energy generation coal natural gas state reported power plant emissions year requirement some states contesting rules say object strict timelines the cpp dramatic speed would require things happen said chris nelson chairman south dakota public utilities commission if let market play things take care texas also protested cpp timetable saying would require construction transmission lines could raise costs consumers but state already moved heavily wind solar recent years nearing goals john hall texas director edf former environmental regulator state said texas could profit rule noting state ranks top list wind energy producers making big moves solar the cpp would enable texas make money exporting wind solar electricity said states export coal power hand concerned ability keep it important get caught fray epa energy policy dictates exporting state said stuart spencer arkansas department environmental quality associate director whatever happens court energy policy remain highly charged political issue republicans overwhelmingly opposed administration attempts curb carbon emissions when i ran office i promised i would everything power protect coal miners jobs said west virginia attorney general patrick morris statement reuters i followed politicsnews
Your task is to classify the provided input as real or fake news. Label 0 is meant for fake news, Label 1 is for real news. TEXT: Most states on track to meet emissions targets they call burdenLOS ANGELES/WASHINGTON(Reuters) - The 27 states challenging Obama’s Clean Power Plan in court say the lower emissions levels it would impose are an undue burden. But most are likely to hit them anyway. Already, Arkansas, North Carolina, Oklahoma and South Dakota appear to be meeting the CPP’s early targets. And changes in the power market, along with policies favoring clean generation, are propelling most of the rest toward timely compliance, according to researchers, power producers and officials, as well as government filings reviewed by Reuters. “We are seeing reductions earlier than we ever expected,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy said in an interview. “It’s a great sign that the market has already shifted and people are invested in the newer technologies, even while we are in litigation.” States engaged in the legal battle that is set for an appellate court hearing later this month say their concerns go beyond whether they can meet the mandate. The states, most of them led by Republican governors, say they object to what they view as federal overreach by Obama and the Democrats and want to maintain flexibility to make energy decisions at the state level that reflect changing market conditions. Cynthia Coffman, attorney general of Colorado, said her state’s likely ability to comply with the CPP’s mandate “truly is not the issue.” “We don’t have anything against clean air,” Coffman said. “That really doesn’t factor into my decision to say the federal government has gone beyond its legal authority.” Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt said that he sees the Clean Power Plan as a form of federal “coercion and commandeering” of energy policy and that the state should have “sovereignty to make decisions for its own markets.” The Obama administration finalized the Clean Power Plan in 2015 as a central part of meeting U.S. obligations under the Paris Climate Agreement. In February, the U.S. Supreme Court stayed implementation of the rule pending resolution of the states’ litigation. Later this month, a panel of the D.C. Circuit Court is scheduled to hear arguments in the case. The CPP sets carbon-reduction goals for each state, but allows states to decide how to meet them. During the early years of implementation, the goals are guidelines intended to put states on track to meet the final deadline of 2030. If a state fails to submit a plan to the EPA by interim deadlines, the agency can impose its own plan on that state’s power producers. Failure to comply by 2030 could open a state up to administrative penalties and lawsuits. To be sure, some states fighting the mandate would have to drastically change course to meet it. West Virginia, which is leading the legal challenge with Texas, still relies largely on carbon-spewing, coal-fired power. And Wisconsin, North Dakota, Montana and Wyoming have large gaps between their current emissions and the plan’s mandates. But, in a reflection of how rapidly the power market is shifting, the U.S. government’s Energy Information Administration earlier this year reduced its forecast for 2030 power plant carbon emissions by nearly 11 percent, without factoring in reductions that may be generated by the Clean Power Plan. The projection for the nation as a whole would be nearly two-thirds of the CPP’s target by 2030, even if the law never takes effect. A 2015 analysis by consulting firm M.J. Bradley & Associates for the Environmental Defense Fund found that 21 of the 27 states suing to block the Clean Power Plan are on track to meet its 2024 targets with existing plants and planned investments. Eighteen states are on track to hit the 2030 targets with no changes to current plans, according to the Bradley analysis, which was filed with the court as part of an amicus brief from the Environmental Defense Fund in support of the government. And the outlook has improved for some states since the Bradley forecast. It didn’t expect Arkansas, for example, to meet the 2024 target. But in 2015, after shifting significant energy generation from coal to natural gas, the state reported power plant emissions for the year that were below the 2030 requirement. Some of the states contesting the rules say they object to strict timelines. “The CPP is very dramatic in the speed at which it would require things to happen,” said Chris Nelson, chairman of the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission. “If you let the market play out, those things take care of themselves.” Texas also has protested the CPP’s timetable, saying it would require the construction of transmission lines that could raise costs for consumers. But the state already has moved heavily into wind and solar in recent years, and is nearing its 2030 goals. John Hall, Texas director for EDF and a former environmental regulator for the state, said Texas could profit from the rule, noting the state ranks at the top of the list of wind energy producers and is making big moves into solar. “The CPP would enable Texas to make money by exporting wind and solar electricity,” he said. States that export coal or gas-fired power, on the other hand, are concerned about their ability to keep doing so. “It is very important that we don’t get caught in the fray of an EPA energy policy that dictates what we do as an exporting state,” said Stuart Spencer, Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality Associate Director. Whatever happens in court, energy policy will remain a highly charged political issue. Republicans are overwhelmingly opposed to the administration’s attempts to curb carbon emissions. “When I ran for office, I promised I would do everything in my power to protect coal miners’ jobs,” said West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey in a statement to Reuters. “I have followed through on that promise.” politicsNews
Your task is to classify the provided input as real or fake news. Label 0 is meant for fake news, Label 1 is for real news. TEXT: most states track meet emissions targets call burdens reuters the states challenging obama clean power plan court say lower emissions levels would impose undue burden but likely hit anyway already arkansas north carolina oklahoma south dakota appear meeting cpp early targets and changes power market along policies favoring clean generation propellant rest toward timely compliance according researchers power producers officials well government filings reviewed reuters we seeing reductions earlier ever expected environmental protection agency administrator gina mccarthy said interview it great sign market already shifted people invested newer technologies even states engaged legal battle set appellate court hearing later month say concerns go beyond whether meet mandate the states led republican governors say object view federal overreach obama democrats want maintain flexibility make energy decisions state level reflect changing market conditions cynthia hoffman attorney general colorado said state likely ability comply cpp mandate truly we anything clean air hoffman said that really factor decision say federal government gone beyond legal oklahoma attorney general scott print said sees clean power plan form federal coercion commandeering energy policy state sovereignty make decisions the obama administration finalized clean power plan central part meeting obligations paris climate agreement in february supreme court stayed implementation rule pending resolution states litigation later month panel circuit court scheduled hear arguments case the cpp sets goals state allows states decide meet during early years implementation goals guidelines intended put states track meet final deadline if state fails submit plan epa interim deadlines agency impose plan state power producers failure comply could open state administrative penalties lawsuits to sure states fighting mandate would drastically change course meet west virginia leading legal challenge texas still relies largely power and wisconsin north dakota montana wyoming large gaps current emissions plan mandates but reflection rapidly power market shifting government energy information administration earlier year reduced forecast power plant carbon emissions nearly percent without factories reductions may generated clean power plan the projection nation whole would nearly cpp target even law never takes effect a analysis consulting firm bradley associates environmental defense fund found states suing block clean power plan track meet targets existing plants planned investments eighteen states track hit targets changes current plans according bradley analysis filed court part amicus brief environmental defense fund support government and outlook improved states since bradley forecast it expect arkansas example meet target but shifting significant energy generation coal natural gas state reported power plant emissions year requirement some states contesting rules say object strict timelines the cpp dramatic speed would require things happen said chris nelson chairman south dakota public utilities commission if let market play things take care texas also protested cpp timetable saying would require construction transmission lines could raise costs consumers but state already moved heavily wind solar recent years nearing goals john hall texas director edf former environmental regulator state said texas could profit rule noting state ranks top list wind energy producers making big moves solar the cpp would enable texas make money exporting wind solar electricity said states export coal power hand concerned ability keep it important get caught fray epa energy policy dictates exporting state said stuart spencer arkansas department environmental quality associate director whatever happens court energy policy remain highly charged political issue republicans overwhelmingly opposed administration attempts curb carbon emissions when i ran office i promised i would everything power protect coal miners jobs said west virginia attorney general patrick morris statement reuters i followed politicsnews