Obama says carbon pollution caps will 'protect health of vulnerable' – as it happened

  • EPA unveils proposal to cut carbon emissions at power plants
  • Gore: 'most important step' on climate in US history
  • Plants to cut pollution 30% from 2005 levels by 2030
  • Critics say plan too costly – or cuts not deep enough
  • Read the latest blog summary here
  • Read our latest news story here
Obama at West Point
President Barack Obama will outline new regulations to cut carbon emissions to 30% of 2005 levels by 2030. Photograph: Susan Walsh/AP

Summary

We're going to wrap up our live blog coverage for the day. You can read our most recent news story here.

Here's a summary of where things stand:

President Barack Obama unveiled a proposal for new limits on carbon pollution at existing power plants. It was the first regulation of its kind ever proposed by the White House.

Under the plan, the Environmental Protection Agency announced a goal of 30% reductions in carbon emissions from 2005 levels by 2030. Reductions would vary by state.

The proposal was generally welcomed by environmental groups, but decried by business and the coal industry for potentially costing jobs and money while having limited environmental benefits.

The EPA has tailored its emissions goals state-by-state, taking into account each state’s fuel mix, its electricity market and numerous other factors. A text of the plan is on the EPA web site here.

Global leaders on environmental issues welcomed the move, saying it could jump-start a stalled international conversation.

Obama touted the health benefits of decreased carbon pollution. “In America we don't have to choose between health of our economy and the health of our kids," he said in a conference call. "We can do both."

Updated

Ratings agency Standard and Poor's are releasing a report tomorrow morning on the credit impact of the EPA announcement, reports Karl Mathiesen (@karlmathiesen) for the Guardian.

"I would caution against thinking this will have an immediate impact on prices," says an S&P officer:

Michael Ferguson, an associate director at the agency and author of the report, said today that much of the speculation about the impact on jobs and electricity prices was "partisan" and the real effect would likely fall somewhere between the two extremes.

"I would caution against thinking this will have an immediate impact on prices," he said. Rather, he said, as the rules come into effect during 2016, states would likely implement a carbon price which would allow emissions trading. This could put pressure on the fossil fuel sector, especially coal. Some coal plants would be forced into retirement around 2020, meaning electricity prices would rise, although by how much he was unable to say.

The price impacts would not be uniform, he said, "varying greatly from state to state". California, which already has an advanced emissions reduction programme, would find the transition easier than some midwestern states that still rely heavily on coal for electricity.

The Washington Post's Jason Samenow has emailed climate scientists to gauge their reactions to today's proposal. "Most (not all) of the scientists I reached out to support the measure, with some qualifiers," Samenow writes.

Read those reactions here. And don't miss this EPA video pitching its proposal today for 30% carbon pollution cuts from 2005-2030:

Before we wrote the proposal, we heard from thousands of people on the best way to move forward. We learned that providing enough time and flexibility, in 15 years, we can cut carbon pollution from the power sector by at least 15% – with significant cuts starting in the early years of the plan.

Updated

Karl Mathiesen (@karlmathiesen) takes another look at the implications for consumer energy costs of the proposed new EPA rules:

A report by the Chamber of Commerce last week predicted the EPA regulations would take and annual average of $200 every year away from household budgets through costs passed on by power companies. The report sparked a flurry of commentary warning of "shuttered businesses, fractured family budgets, widespread job losses and dire threats to electric reliability".

But the EPA estimated today that in 2020 the electricity price would have increased by a maximum of 3.2%. This would represent an average annual increase of $42.29 (this price is based on the EIA's electricity price figures for today, not the projected price for 2020, so should be considered a guide). By 2025, bills would decrease significantly, somewhere in the range of 3.2% to 8.7%.

Obama today told reporters on a conference call that warnings of personal financial disaster were over-egged and the industry would adapt swiftly.

“What we’ve seen every time is that these claims are debunked when you actually give workers and businesses the tools and the incentives they need to innovate,” Obama said.

EPA proposals state-by-state

The EPA has produced an interactive map with a state-by-state breakdown of climate change impacts, state action, and EPA proposals. The three states that would have to trim their carbon emissions most as a percentage under the new rules are Washington (71.8%), Arizona (51.7%) and South Carolina (51.4%).

The state that would have to trim its emissions rate most in absolute terms is South Carolina, which is tasked with trimming carbon pollution by 815 lb/MWh.

The state that will have to trim its emissions least as a percentage is Maine, which would move from 437 lb/MWh in 2012 to 378 lb/Mwh in 2030 (13.5% decrease).

The state that would have to trim its emissions rate least in absolute terms is Idaho, which is tasked with trimming carbon pollution by 111 lb/MWh, from 339 to 228.

Vox does more playing with the state numbers here.

Here's a Democrat who is not on board with the president's new EPA rules: Alison Lundergan Grimes, the candidate running to oust Mitch McConnell from his Kentucky senate seat.

Kentucky is coal country. Coal accounted for 92% of electricity production in the state for 2012, according to the Georgetown Climate Center.

The average price of electricity in Kentucky is low – 7 cents a kilowatt hour compared with a national average of 10 cents a kilowatt hour – but the ratio of electricity spending to economic output is higher in Kentucky at 3.8% than for the nation as a whole (2.5%).

The Georgetown Climate Center has a great state-by-state breakdown of the coal economy.

Joe Sonka (@joesonka)

.@AlisonForKY says her campaign is running this ad in EKY & WKY hitting Obama/EPA/CoalCoalCoal: #kysen pic.twitter.com/uATQekWSJM

June 2, 2014

Higher electricity bills and more blackouts: that's what the average American can expect from the proposed new EPA rules, according to one very interested party, the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE).

Karl Mathiesen (@karlmathiesen) digs into a press release quoting president ACCCE president Mike Duncan:

“Sadly, EPA’s proposed regulations put America’s low- and middle-income families most at risk of paying disproportionately more for energy," Duncan said. "More so, the rule threatens the energy reliability and economic promise we enjoy today. Only by recognizing the importance of an energy portfolio rich in fuel source diversity will we preserve America’s access to stable and affordable power.

For a countervailing view, Karl flags a report from May by Sue Tierney, managing principal at The Analysis Group and board member of World Resources Institute. Tierney sees "no reasonable basis to anticipate that EPA’s guidance" will create power reliability problems, because "flexibility built into the EPA rules would allow states to manage their reductions using emissions trading."

Speaking today, Tierney said the "bountiful supply of natural gas will make all the difference in the world" to reliability, Karl reports. And with regard to the price of electricity,

Tierney said she agreed with reports that predicted the new regulations would lead to an increase in the price of power over the short term, but eventually the price would come down as the centre of power generation moved away from coal.

Tierney added that despite being less stringent than she expected, the EPA's rules were "ambitious and reasonable". Theoretically, she said, the cuts could have gone deeper and still not caused supply issues. But the Clean Air Act requires the rules to stand up to legal action. A key part of the Act is the requirement for the expectations to be reasonable.

Guardian US environment correspondent Suzanne Goldenberg (@suzyji) has been listening in on a conference call with president Barack Obama. The call was hosted by public health groups who support the EPA proposal.

"Barack Obama has been hitting the phones rallying public support for the new EPA rules," Suzanne writes:

He told a conference call with public health groups hosted by the American Lung Association that the new standards would deliver real benefits for those with asthma and other respiratory illness – and at an affordable price tag for consumers.

The EPA plan was a “sensible” way of cutting carbon pollution, he said. “Up until now there has been no national limits on the amount of carbon pollution existing power plants can pump into the air.”

U.S. President Barack Obama is photographed through the window as he speaks in the Oval Office during a conference call hosted by the American Lung Association to find ways to reduce carbon pollution from power plants at the White House in Washington, June 2, 2014.
U.S. President Barack Obama is photographed through the window as he speaks in the Oval Office during a conference call hosted by the American Lung Association. Photograph: LARRY DOWNING/Reuters

Obama went on to frame the new rules as a public health win – especially for those at greater risk of lung diseases, such as children and the elderly. Suzanne continues:

Obama noted African-Americans and Latinos had higher rates for hospital visits due to asthma.

“Putting guidelines in place will help protect the health of vulnerable Americans including children and the elderly," he said. Obama said that by 2030 “your electricity bills will shrink.”

He warned there would be opponents claiming that the guideliness would destroy jobs and the economy – but said those claims were misguided and public relations spin.

“In America we don't have to choose between health of our economy and the health of our kids. We can do both,” he said.

“This is something that is important for all of us as parents, as grandparents, and as citizens. As a parent who cares about the health of our families and who also want to make sure future generations can enjoy this beautiful blue ball in the middle of space we are part of....I'm asking people to build momentum for these plans.”

Updated

More positive reviews from environmental groups: Ceres, the green investor network of 128 companies and 49 investors managing $800 billion in assets, organized an initiative to send letters to the White House and leaders of both parties in Congress supporting the new rules as "a critical step" to dealing with climate change.

That praise was echoed by the nonprofit American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE), which said the EPA announcement signalled "strong intent to maintain the United States’ global leadership in cutting carbon."

“This is the dawn of the era of climate solutions," said Dan Adler, co-chair of ACORE board of directors and a director of the California Clean Energy Fund. "By allowing states to stimulate investment in local, renewable energy projects to meet carbon reduction requirements, EPA can help sustain the surge in capital commitments to these technologies and boost growth at a critical time for our economy.”

Green groups have been mostly positive about today's announcement, writes Karl Mathiesen (@karlmathiesen) for the Guardian.

Greenpeace UK executive director John Sauven said Obama's move on climate change should bring shame to British prime minister David Cameron:

“Obama’s bold leadership on climate action, standing up to the fossil fuel industry and their political backers, makes the foot-dragging from ‘the greenest government ever’ look even more embarrassing," Sauven said.

“David Cameron hasn’t made one stand-alone speech on climate change since becoming Prime Minister. Instead he has taken every opportunity to undermine Britain’s wind and solar industries, as well as giving a new lease of life to our ageing coal plants and botching the government flagship scheme for energy efficiency. Obama previously said he doesn’t have time to meet with the Flat Earth Society – Cameron has appointed avowed flat-earthers to top cabinet jobs.

“Unless Cameron shifts his commitment to climate action up a gear, the UK will be left playing catch-up in the age of clean energy, losing out on jobs and business opportunities.”

But Friends of the Earth president, Erich Pica, said the cut to emissions were just the start of an effective response to climate change:

"President Obama has taken the most significant step by any American president to combat climate disruption. While a step forward, this rule simply doesn't go far enough to put us on the right path. The science on climate change has become clearer and more dire, requiring more aggressive action from the president."

Writing in the New York Times last week, Jody Freeman explained the legal underpinnings for the EPA's never-before-tried move to regulate carbon emissions at existing power plants. The EPA claims the authority under a section of the Clean Air Act known as 111(d):

This section requires states to adopt performance standards for existing sources of pollution. The E.P.A. sets benchmarks that the states must meet and can improve upon.

Some critics argue that the E.P.A. lacks the authority to regulate power plant pollution under this provision, but that argument is weak.[...]

The more serious legal battle will be over how stringent the performance standards can be. Some opponents from states and the utility industry insist that the standards must be based solely on what individual facilities can achieve on-site with existing technologies.

All sides expect plenty of opportunity in the form of a hailstorm of lawsuits to answer the legal questions at stake. Read the full piece here.

Updated

Could climate change as a political issue be a plus for Democrats in the midterm elections videos like this notwithstanding?

"The last time Congress made a serious effort on climate change," writes Guardian US environment correspondent Suzanne Goldenberg (@suzyji), "Joe Manchin campaigned for a Senate seat in West Virginia by shooting a rifle at a cap-and-trade bill. And Manchin, who won, is a Democrat":

Four years on, Republican candidates who deny the existence of climate change may be shooting themselves in the foot – and Democrats might even be able to say the words "global warming" out loud on the campaign trail between now and November.

The rules being announced by the Environmental Protection Agency on Monday represent a workaround – President Obama had to circumvent Congress and use his executive authority to enact the EPA's new regulations on power plants. But they also mark a sea change on sea-level rise: in a year when big money and big policy changes have made climate change a legitimate mid-term election issue, it's no longer political poison to talk about the threat to the planet. In 2014, it may even be a plus for some candidates trying to save it.

"As it turns out, the political climate is changing, Suzanne writes. Read the full piece here.

Updated

The president had declared a war on coal, and a war on jobs, according to a video produced by the Republican National Committee and published online today:

The US chamber of commerce, meanwhile, has published a report that forecasts 224,000 lost jobs every year for the next 15 years. Writing for the Guardian, Karl Mathiesen (@karlmathiesen) notes that the report in question bases its projections on a Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) plan that is more severe than the EPA's.

Chamber President and CEO Thomas J. Donohue said Monday that the regulations would "add immense cost and regulatory burdens on America’s job creators. They will have a profound effect on the economy, on businesses, and on families".

But the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) said last week that the EPA laws could create 274,000 new jobs in the energy efficiency sector by 2020, Karl writes:

Sheryl Carter, co-director of NRDC’s Energy Program said: “Energy efficiency is the cheapest, fastest and cleanest way to cut carbon emissions, and it benefits local communities enormously by putting people to work and lowering bills. We are already seeing clear examples of efficiency in action, with huge job and money-savings benefits based on real-world experience by states."

Karl Mathiesen (@KarlMathiesen)

NRDC said last week that a more stringent reduction plan would create 274,000 jobs. Source: http://t.co/ZJAfsrOeNU pic.twitter.com/nTRFBl3jUI

June 2, 2014

Updated

Senior EPA officials have just finished briefing reporters on the new power plant rules – which are pretty staggering in their complexity, writes Guardian US environment correspondent Suzanne Goldenberg (@suzyji). The regulations weigh in at 645 pages with an additional 376 pages of impact analysis.

Suzanne writes up a few key points:

EPA officials – anonymous under the terms of the call – are skittish about describing 2005 as a “baseline” year, even though it's the point of comparison for achieving the 30% cut in power plant emissions by 2030.

That's because emissions have already fallen significantly because of fracking and cheap natural gas, and the EPA is running into pushback from environmental groups who say the 30% target is not ambitious enough.

The EPA officials told the call the regulations also take into account emissions in the states in 2012, which were lower. Even though 2005 is the comparison point.

The other key point officials were anxious to drive home, Suzanne writes, was that the rules allow for a menu of options, and states are free to order up a la carte, choosing to reduce emissions at the source, invest in renewables, or encourage customers to save on electricity:

The rules are also tailored to each state – in some cases down to a single power plant. Officials told the call the target emissions reduction for Washington state took into account the scheduled retirement of an ageing coal-fired power plant in the next few years.

Another key takeaway – come 2030, America is still going to be using coal to some extent. EPA officials told the call they expect coal and natural gas to make up just under a third of the electricity supply, with renewables generating some 9%.

Updated

Guardian environment correspondent Fiona Harvey is gathering reaction to the EPA proposal. "It's essential to get the US and China aligned [on climate change] as that is what will make the real difference," Yvo de Boer, former United Nations climate chief, told the Guardian. Fiona writes:

He was hopeful that President Obama's stance would make that a reality. Beijing has not yet officially responded to President Obama's announcement, but has its own plans for cutting emissions, partly in response to the air pollution crisis.

Ed Davey, the UK energy and climate secretary, adds this:

"These US proposals have come at a crucial time, and could shift the global debate.”

Updated

Summary

As our live blog coverage continues, here's a summary of where things stand:

The Environmental Protection Agency rolled out a proposal to confront climate change by cutting carbon pollution at existing US power plants. If adopted, it would be the first regulation of its kind.

President Barack Obama proposed the new rules under his executive authority after years of frustration with congressional inaction. The president had previously set new emissions rules for cars and future plant construction.

The plan would set state-by-state pollution reduction goals with the overall goal of cutting carbon emissions by 30% from 2005 levels by the year 2030. Climate change economist Nicholas Stern said the cuts would be insufficient to avoid the 2°C warming that scientists believe will be dangerous.

Opponents of the new rules including the coal industry, business interests and some political leaders who warned that the plan would cost jobs and make electricity more expensive. In a speech (full text) announcing the rules, EPA administrator Gina McCarthy said the opposite would happen.

Many environmental advocates embraced the EPA proposal, including the Sierra Club and former vice president Al Gore, who called them "the most important step taken to combat the climate crisis in our country’s history".

The president was scheduled to talk about the proposal on a conference call this afternoon hosted by public health groups, which link pollution to asthma rates and other ailments.

Updated

Here's a map of countries vulnerable to climate change, via Brad Plumer at Vox:

brad plumer (@bradplumer)

Which countries are most vulnerable to climate change? Mostly the poor ones, says S&P: http://t.co/gkyhpgNn3z pic.twitter.com/qns4ywT5LR

June 2, 2014

In this October 30, 2009 file photo smoke stacks at American Electric Power's (AEP) Mountaineer coal power plant are seen in New Haven, West Virginia.
In this October 30, 2009 file photo smoke stacks at American Electric Power's (AEP) Mountaineer coal power plant are seen in New Haven, West Virginia. Photograph: SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images

The Evangelical Environmental Network (EEN), a group of evangelical Christians dedicated to environmental issues – and no natural political ally of the president – has come out strongly in favor of the new EPA rules, calling them an "historic step".

"Today's release of the EPA's draft regulation of existing power plants is an historic step in our nation's journey to overcome climate change," said Rev. Mitch Hescox, the group's president. "We look forward to studying the draft carefully as we offer our support and suggestions for possible improvements."

A statement by the network groups environmental protection with other "pro-life" concerns:

A chief concern of pro-life Christians is the health impacts of the pollution from fossil fuels that is driving climate change.

"The health and well-being of our children is already being affected," said Rev. Emilio Marreo of Esperanza, an Hispanic evangelical organization. "The impact of air pollution is a significant concern for the Latino community because Latino Americans are more likely to live in areas with high levels of air toxicity due to poverty. We can't afford not to act."

(h/t @suzyji)

The EPA proposal has drawn sharp opposition from the coal industry and lobby, business interests led by the US Chamber of Commerce, anti-regulation groups and political leaders whose constituents rely on economically thriving power plants and fear the new rules could hurt or close them.

The Republican rank-and-file opposes the new EPA rules, nodding to a study promoted by the US Chamber of Commerce saying the regulations would be costly and destroy jobs (the EPA offers precisely the opposite prediction on both counts).

House speaker John Boehner has tweeted a link to an argument on his web site saying that electricity prices will spike as a result of the regulations:

Speaker John Boehner (@SpeakerBoehner)

Obama admin’s new EPA rule will cost Americans more of their paychecks & put people out of work. http://t.co/nRucmfYlMu #energy #jobs

June 2, 2014

The libertarian-rooted Cato Institute also has issued a rebuttal accusing the EPA of junk science. the Cato reply challenges one data point, the EPA's tracking of heat-related deaths.

And there's this vivid language from the Republican senatorial candidate from Kentucky, a coal-producing state:

Sen. McConnell Press (@McConnellPress)

McConnell: EPA Overreach ‘a dagger in the heart of the American middle class’

June 2, 2014

(h/t @lilahrap)

Updated

Full text of EPA administrator's remarks

Here is the text of EPA administrator Gina McCarthy's statement this morning. She began with a story about an asthmatic child who has to tailor his outdoor playtime to air pollution levels:

About a month ago, I took a trip to the Cleveland Clinic. I met a lot of great people, but one stood out—even if he needed to stand on a chair to do it. Parker Frey is 10 years old. He’s struggled with severe asthma all his life. His mom said despite his challenges, Parker’s a tough, active kid—and a stellar hockey player.

But sometimes, she says, the air is too dangerous for him to play outside. In the United States of America, no parent should ever have that worry.

That’s why EPA exists. Our job, directed by our laws, reaffirmed by our courts, is to protect public health and the environment. Climate change, fueled by carbon pollution, supercharges risks not just to our health, but to our communities, our economy, and our way of life. That’s why EPA is delivering on a vital piece of President Obama's Climate Action Plan.

Read McCarthy's full address as prepared for delivery here.

Updated

Lilah Raptopoulos (@lilahrap) of the Guardian US Open team has pulled together a Twitter list of climate change resources. Follow it here for commentary and analysis from climate experts, journalists, Obama administration officials and politicians invested in the issue.

If you're interested in opposing voices, you can always follow the House Republicans Twitter list, which currently is on a roll. We'll round up some of those voices momentarily.

Signed, sealed, delivered.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Gina McCarthy signs new emission guidelines during an announcement of a plan to cut carbon dioxide emissions from power plants by 30 percent by 2030, Monday, June 2, 2014, at EPA headquarters in Washington.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Gina McCarthy signs new emission guidelines during an announcement of a plan to cut carbon dioxide emissions from power plants by 30 percent by 2030, Monday, June 2, 2014, at EPA headquarters in Washington. Photograph: Evan Vucci/AP

Guardian US environment correspondent Suzanne Goldenberg (@suzyji) has a snap take on this morning's rollout speech by EPA administrator Gina McCarthy.

McCarthy "ended her speech on an optimistic note – praising American innovation, and saying she was confident business would find ways to meet the new standard," Suzanne writes:

She also had a special call-out to mothers, part of a strategy to rally maximum public support for the new power plant rules and blunt the anticipated onslaught from conservative groups and industry ahead of the mid-terms.

“We have a moral obligation to ensure that the world we leave behind is safe healthy and vibrant,” McCarthy said.

McCarthy throughout her speech reached out to families, playing up the public health benefits of the rules and playing down the risks of electricity price rises and industry, emphasising that companies could set their plans for cutting emissions.

But McCarthy made no effort at all to be conciliatory with the hard core of those who deny global warming is occurring, Suzanne writes:

“I am little tired of people pointing to the polar vortex as a reason not to act on climate change,” she said. “It's exactly the opposite. It's a wake-up call.”

The hardline against climate deniers is a relatively new strategy for the Obama Administration, which would have once let such claims pass unremarked. But both Obama and McCarthy have hit out against climate deniers in their speeches on the power plant rules. Expect a more robust defence of the science in the months ahead.

Updated

Are the pollution reductions deep enough? Previous suggestions for a new global climate protocol suggest the EPA plan may not be as ambitious as billed. Karl Mathiesen (@karlmathiesen) writes:

The National Resources Defense Council has previously made the case for a 26% reduction on 2012 levels by 2020, a tighter timeline and lower baseline than the one proposed today by the EPA. Its report showed that this could be achieved with a net gain of between $21-$56 billion to the US economy when the health and environmental benefits were accounted for. But the NDRC's president Frances Beinecke today welcomed the changes calling them "fair" and a "giant leap forward in protecting the health of all Americans and future generations".

EU Climate Action Commissioner Connie Hedegaard said that for the 2015 Paris climate conference "to deliver what is needed to stay below a 2°C increase in global temperature, all countries, including the United States, must do even more than what this reduction trajectory indicates".

And top climate change economist Nicholas Stern commented today that while this level of reductions would help the US meet the target agreed to at the Cancun climate summit in 2010, this level of ambition would still be insufficient to avoid the 2°C warming that scientists believe will be dangerous:

"The United States, China and European Union all need to increase the ambition of their emissions cuts to be consistent with the overall goal of delivering a reasonable chance of avoiding dangerous global warming of more than 2 centigrade degrees above pre-industrial levels," Stern said.

Updated

Are the pollution reductions deep enough? The United States already has been cutting its carbon emissions, notes Karl Mathiesen (@karlmathiesen) for the Guardian:

Since 2005, the baseline year for the EPA's new pollution plan, there have been major changes in the way the US produces electricity. The financial crisis impacted energy consumption dramatically. According to the US Energy Information Administration, carbon emissions in the energy sector dropped 15% between 2005 and 2012. Almost half of this was accounted for by a drop in electricity generation, the rest was due to a decrease in the carbon intensity of the sector (ie. more gas and renewables).

This means the drop in emissions required by the new EPA rules over the next 16 years is less than the drop which occurred without regulation in the seven years between 2005 and 2012.

Is the president's big climate announcement making a splash on the airwaves? On C-SPAN it is. On the other channels – well, the president himself has yet to speak:

HuffPost Media (@HuffPostMedia)

Currently, CNN is the only cable network of the big 3 covering the EPA announcement. (Fox News is covering…Benghazi!)

June 2, 2014

(h/t: @kaylaepstein)

McCarthy says American innovation is up to the challenge of meeting new pollution and climate goals. "We can lead this fight," she says. "We can innovate our way to a better future. That's what America does best":

Yes our climate crisis is a global problem and it demands a global solution... but we can act the day to advance the ball, and we can limit the dangers of punting the problems to our own children.

Guardian US environment correspondent Suzanne Goldenberg (@suzyji) is watching McCarthy's speech. The remarks "keep closely to the script set out by Barack Obama over the weekend: climate change is personal, and dealing with climate change will not hurt the economy," Suzanne writes:

“This is not just about disappearing polar bears and melting ice caps,” McCarthy said in a speech at EPA headquarters. “This is about protecting our health and protecting our homes. This is about protecting local economies and this is about protecting jobs.”

McCarthy focused on two main points as she went over the broad outlines of the plan.

One: the power plant rules will make a real difference to dealing with climate change – and air pollution, which is responsible for heart attacks and asthma. Two: the plan is deliberately “customised” for each state.

“There is no one size fits all solution,” McCarthy said. “It's up to states to mix and match to get their goals.”

McCarthy also hit back at criticism from industry and conservative groups that the rules will lead to power outages or higher electricity prices. “Critics say that their energy bills will skyrocket. Well, they're wrong,” she said.

Updated

McCarthy says for every dollar invested in the plan, families will see $7 in direct health benefits. "And if states are smart", in 2030, average electricity bills will be 8% cheaper.

That's an applause line. Appraising the economic projection work behind the pleasing sounding stats, of course, is a longer process.

"States have to design plans now... so that they can be on a trajectory to meet their final goals by 2030," McCarthy, the EPA administrator, says.

McCarthy touts the plan as win-win for business and the environment:

What's special about the flexibility of our plan? It doesn't just give our states more options. It gives investors and entrepreneurs more options to play to. It will deliver the certainty that private investment is looking for.

She says it will spur technology innovation and "spur private investment" in every direction, "not just the one or two we know about today.

McCarthy says the plan is tailored state-by-state:

The glue that holds this plan together ... is that each state's goal is tailored to their own circumstances... each state's different, so each goal, and each path, can be different."

McCarthy says the new rules would result in pollution savings that amoung to "double what every power plant in America generated in the way of pollution in 2012."

The result, she says: lower medical bills and fewer trips to the emergency rooms, especially for kids with asthma, the elderly and infirm.

McCarthy says the plan "is also about environmental justice" because "lower-income families and communities of color are hardest-hit."

McCarthy is describing symptoms of climate change and their costs. She names rising seas, rising insurance premiums, rising property taxes, rising temperatures.

"This is not just about disappearing polar bears and melting ice caps, although I like polar bears and I've heard about the ice caps – this is about protecting our health and protecting our homes," McCarthy says.

The time to act is now.

Gina McCarthy, the EPA administrator, has begun speaking. Watch her live here. She says the EPA is "extremely proud" of the plan, a centerpiece of the president's global climate action plan.

Updated

The Sierra Club has released a statement in support of the plan. Michael Brune, Executive Director of the Sierra Club, said "today, the president made good on his promise to American families that his administration would tackle the climate crisis, and clean up and modernize the way we power our country":

Climate disruption is the greatest challenge facing our generation. Until now, power plants have been allowed to dump unlimited amounts of carbon pollution into our air, driving dangerous climate disruption, and fueling severe drought, wildfires, heat waves and superstorms. Extreme weather, and the costs to Americans’ health and wallets, will only worsen unless we act.

The Sierra Club and our 2.4 million members and supporters stand with President Obama and EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy. In the month ahead, we will work to ensure a strong and just standard for cutting carbon pollution. In doing so, we will protect the health of our children, boost our clean energy economy, and help American communities thrive.

Expected to begin in a few minutes is a news conference with EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy (no relation), who will present the plan.

You can watch it on C-SPAN here.

A snap reaction in strong favor from the junior senator from Massachusetts:

Ed Markey (@MarkeyMemo)

This is the beginning of the end of America’s long, dirty power plant era. #ActOnClimate http://t.co/0dHap6BK8E

June 2, 2014

(h/t @kaylaepstein)

In his weekly radio address at the weekend, President Barack Obama touted the potential health benefits from curbed carbon emissions.

"We don’t have to choose between the health of our economy and the health of our children,” Obama said. “As president, and as a parent, I refuse to condemn our children to a planet that’s beyond fixing.”

The American Lung Association is one of the first groups to embrace today's EPA proposal. ALA president Harold P. Wimmer said the plan shows "serious commitment to addressing one of the most serious public health challenges of our day, climate change":

“Power plant pollution makes people sick and cuts short lives. We are pleased to see significant health benefits from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed limits on carbon pollution from power plants, which would reduce the burden of air pollution in America, prevent up to 4,000 premature deaths and 100,000 asthma attacks in the first year they are in place, and prevent up to 6,600 premature deaths and 150,000 asthma attacks in 2030.

On the long road to today's announcement, environmental groups eventually rallied behind the new rules, Guardian US environment correspondent Suzanne Goldenberg (@suzyji) writes.

Andrew Steer, president of the World Resources Institute, called the EPA proposal a "momentous development" that "raises the bar for controlling carbon emissions in the United States." A statement from Steer read in part:

It’s the most important action available to cut US emissions—and the Obama administration has seized the opportunity. These new standards send a powerful message around the world that it’s time to face the global threat of climate change [...]

Despite the usual grumbling from some critics, it’s abundantly clear that these rules can be implemented cost-effectively. Time and again opposition groups have made dire economic predictions about new regulations, when in fact they repeatedly drive innovation and open new economic opportunities.

Updated

Gore: most important step on climate in US history

Here's more from former vice president Al Gore, reacting to the EPA announcement, which he calls "the most important step taken to combat the climate crisis in our country’s history":

President Obama has taken hold of the challenges we face through a series of critical actions, empowering the EPA to enforce limits on CO2 emissions for new power plants, accelerating the adoption of renewable energy and enforcing bold new standards for fuel economy, while continuing to raise awareness of the urgency of the climate crisis and reestablish American leadership on the global stage.

Solving the climate crisis will no doubt be difficult, but - thanks to this action by President Obama and many others - we are now in a position to put ourselves on the path to a sustainable future.

Much more reaction to come.

Guardian US environment correspondent Suzanne Goldenberg (@suzyji) says the EPA proposal "spurs prospects for a global deal to end climate change but sets up an epic battle over the environment in this year's mid-term elections":

The new rules were not as ambitious as some environmental groups had hoped. America is already a third of the way towards meeting the national average of a 30% cut in emissions. Some states, especially those in the north-east have already exceeded the standard.

Even so, reaction from environmental groups to the new power plant rules ranged from “momentous” to “historic”. Al Gore said the new rules were “the most important step taken to combat the climate crisis in our country's history”.

But a lobby group for the coal industry – which will be hit hardest by the new rules – said the regulations would hurt the economy and lead to power outages. “If these rules are allowed to go into effect, the administration for all intents and purposes is creating America's next energy crisis,” the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity said.

Updated

What will it cost? (1/?)

The EPA proposal projects that, in 2030, the significant reductions in the harmful carbon pollution and in other air pollution, to which this rule would lead, would result in net climate and health benefits of $48bn to $82bn.

"At the same time," the report says, "coal and natural gas would remain the two leading sources of electricity generation in the U.S., with each providing more than 30 percent of the projected generation."

One of the main opponents of the new regulations, the US Chamber of Commerce, does not foresee the net benefits the EPA predicts. A chamber study estimates that between now and 2030, the program would cost $50.2 billion in constant dollars per year.

That's supposed to sound expensive – but it's not, the economist Paul Krugman wrote last week:

Remember, we have a $17 trillion economy right now, and it’s going to grow over time. So what the Chamber of Commerce is actually saying is that we can take dramatic steps on climate — steps that would transform international negotiations, setting the stage for global action — while reducing our incomes by only one-fifth of 1 percent. That’s cheap!

Another part of this equation: consumer energy prices. If it's expensive for power plants to comply with the regulations, those costs are likely to show up on your power bill. The EPA predicts a 4-7% rise in electricity prices, a Vox correspondent notes:

brad plumer (@bradplumer)

Electricity prices are relatively low now. EPA expects a 4-7% rise by 2020 under new rule: http://t.co/jeyLrz2mWI pic.twitter.com/8fnTJkuWh3

June 2, 2014

The EPA proposal is split into two parts: 1) state-specific emission rate-based CO2 goals and 2) guidelines for the development, submission and implementation of state plans.

In the first part, the state goals, the proposal is at pains to say "each state’s goal reflects its unique conditions."

"In calculating each state’s CO2 goal, the EPA took into consideration the state’s fuel mix, its electricity market and numerous other factors," the proposal says. It does not "prescribe how a state should meet its goal", but proposes a partnership between states and the agency to craft a plan.

In the second part, the submission and implementation guidelines, the proposal lays out "latitude states have in developing compliance strategies," as well as "the flexibility they have in the timing for submittal of their plans and the flexibility they have in determining the schedule by which their sources must achieve the required CO2 reductions."

We'll bring you some highlights of the state-by-state breakdown as the day unfolds.

EPA publishes carbon pollution proposal

The EPA has published its proposal for new carbon pollution targets by 2030. As previously reported, the agency proposes a 30% reduction in carbon pollution from 2005 levels by the year 2030.

"This proposal is a significant step forward in the EPA and states partnering to reduce GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions in the U.S.," the agency writes, according to a prepublication version, signed today by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy.

The proposal is at pains to emphasize its flexible approach to regulation. It puts forward "state-specific rate-based goals for carbon dioxide emissions from the power sector, as well as guidelines for states to follow in developing plans to achieve the state-specific goals."

The subtext is that this should not be seen as a heavy-handed federal regulation imposed on the unwilling states. "EPA's proposal... is flexible – reflecting that different states have a different mix of sources and opportunities, and reflecting the important role of states as full partners with the federal government in cutting pollution," the prepublication version says.

The proposal describes the many parties who contributed:

This effort encompassed several hundred meetings across the country with state environmental and energy officials, public utility commissioners, system operators, utilities and public interest advocates, as well as members of the public. Many participants submitted written material and data to the EPA as well.

The agency has put out a public call for comment and announced public hearings to take the new rule under advisement. The new regulations would take effect next June.

We'll have more shortly.

Updated

Good morning and welcome to our live blog coverage as President Barack Obama and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) unveil a bold new effort to confront climate change.

According to advance reports, the president will announce new regulations requiring existing power plants to, by the year 2030, produce 30% less carbon pollution than they were in 2005. Power plants are the largest single source of carbon pollution, accounting for nearly 40% of the emissions that cause climate change.

Today’s move represents the first attempt by any president to regulate carbon pollution from power plants.

Guardian US environment correspondent Suzanne Goldenberg (@suzyji) has written a preview of today’s announcement. “The regulations could lead to a sweeping transformation of America's energy economy, if they survive an onslaught from business and conservative groups, and Republicans in Congress,” she writes:

The rules could also break open negotiations for a global climate change deal, the United Nations climate chief, Christiana Figueres, said. [...]

The rules could affect some 1,600 power plants. About 600 of these operate on coal, including many that are nearly 50 years old and will have the most difficulty meeting the new standards.

Under the rule, states and power companies will have a range of options to meet the new standards: switching from coal to cleaner-burning natural gas; forming cap-and-trade markets; expanding renewables such as wind and solar power; or encouraging customers to use less energy by moving to more efficient heating and cooling systems and appliances.

That's a departure for the EPA, which generally has focused on curbing emissions from specific smoke stacks.

We will be live blogging the EPA announcement, which will be followed by a statement from the president. We’ll also be gathering reaction from environmental groups and from opponents of the new regulations, who say they will be ineffective and too costly. And we’ll take a closer look at the energy and pollution picture at the state and company level. We hope you’ll join us.