EPA’s Carbon Rule: State Goals

How much does each state need to reduce its carbon load to comply with the federal government’s landmark carbon rule?

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

How much does each state need to reduce its carbon load to comply with the federal government’s landmark carbon rule?

Since yesterday’s unveiling of the Environmental Protection Agency’s carbon rule for existing power plants, TheGreenGrok has been rooting around in the details.

One of the signature features is the flexibility each state will have in implementing how to reach its state-specific goal. The reductions needed to reach the state goals in 2030 vary immensely as you can see in the chart below.

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

The state of Washington is expected to cut its emissions by 72 percent whereas Wyoming’s reduction goal is 19 percent and Texas’s is 39 percent. Vermont has no goal as it has no power plants that would be impacted by the rule.

Part of the reason for the wide variation is that EPA took into account a number of state-specific factors including building on emissions-reducing plans already on the books as well as the energy mix and the opportunities to shift to lower carbon sources of energy.

Check out more info on states here.

Is it legal? Given the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (which directs states to clean up their emissions to reduce pollution of other downwind states), it would seem to be. Is it fair? Well, I guess that depends on where you live and whether you subscribe to the notion that fair means equal.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American