Trump to Sign Executive Order Undoing Obama Cuts in Power Plant Emissions


And undoing the Clean Power Plan could help Trump keep his promise to "cancel job-killing restrictions" on the production of American energy.

Pruitt pointed out that innovation and technology, particularly in coal and natural gas, have brought the country's carbon footprint to pre-1994 levels.

Supporters of former President Obama's plan, including some Democratic-led states and environmental groups, argue it would spur thousands of clean-energy jobs and help the US meet ambitious goals to reduce carbon pollution set by an worldwide agreement reached in Paris in late 2015.

Coal miners such as Arch Coal (ARCH), BHP Billiton (BHP), Cloud Peak Energy (CLD), Freeport-McMoRan (FCX) and Rio Tinto (RIO), together with exchange-traded fund Market Vectors-Coal ETF (KOL), are likely to be the biggest beneficiaries of this drive to reverse the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan.

Mr. Pruitt said the executive order targeting the Clean Power Plan will be signed Tuesday.

The plan is also considered important to helping the United States meet the goals set out in a climate treaty signed in Paris in 2015. "So Paris was just a bad deal, in my estimation", he said.

The former Oklahoma attorney general blamed the Obama administration for following "a very anti-fossil fuel strategy".

Pruitt also said that the United States' footprint for carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions was at its lowest level since 1994, and that innovation in the natural gas sector, especially from hydraulic fracturing (fracking), is partially responsible.

"The Clean Power Plan is not tethered to. the Paris Accords", he told Stephanopoulos. They didn't have to take steps until 2030.

Immediately after describing the Paris Agreement as a "bad deal", he added: "But we're trying to focus on getting things right here domestically and making sure we operate within the framework of the Clean Air Act".

But Pruitt said that is not a concern for Trump. We need a pro-growth and pro-environment approach for how we do regulations in this country. The other, called the "social cost of carbon", is a metric reflecting the potential economic damage from climate change that was used by the Obama administration to justify a suite of regulations.