 just how far EPA could go toward curbing the pollution that scientists warn will need to drop to near zero within a few decades to stave off the worst effects of climate change.

The Obama rule advanced a risky legal argument that the electric sector’s unique characteristics meant the best way to reduce emissions was to consider fuel shifting, from carbon-heavy coal to natural gas or renewable power sources.

But opponents of that plan have blasted it as an egregious overreach of executive branch power, and the new Trump proposal hews more closely to traditional regulations that rely on the reductions possible at specific sources.

Many scientists warn that time is running short to avoid the worst effects of higher temperatures, rising sea levels and more powerful weather disasters that are caused by increased greenhouse gas concentrations in the planet's atmosphere. Conservatives and fossil fuel companies have argued that Congress never meant to empower EPA to enforce sweeping rules affecting such a major sector of the economy.

“I think that they are on a path that [former EPA chief Scott] Pruitt started, which was to say, ‘First walk, then run,’” said Tom Pyle, president of the energy industry-backed American Energy Alliance.

“The reductions in carbon emissions will be less, but it will be a legal rule, a lawful rule,” said David B. Rivkin Jr., a lawyer who represented Oklahoma and other states in litigation that froze the Obama rule in 2016.

Green groups fear the Trump plan and its modest goals could create a precedent that restricts what EPA can do and prevents future administrations from issuing stronger rules.

“As a policy matter, it locks in absolutely minimal changes,” said David Bookbinder, a former Sierra Club chief climate counsel who is now chief counsel for the libertarian Niskanen Center. The Trump administration’s opponents will argue in the upcoming legal challenges that EPA should not be allowed to establish a policy that guarantees those modest carbon reductions, he added.

If the Trump rule is eventually blocked by legal barriers, Pyle noted that at least it will put off stricter regulations for years to come.

“Even if a future administration comes in that’s more like Obama in terms of philosophy, it’ll still be years and years and years before they can actually clamp down and do a back-to-an-Obama-style rule,” he said.

One of the crucial legal disputes over EPA’s climate authority is determining what type of regulatory scheme represents the “best system
just how far EPA could go toward curbing the pollution that scientist warn will necessitate to drop to near zero within a few decades to stave off the bad impression of climate change. 

 The Obama rule advance a bad legal argument that the electric sector ’s alone characteristics meant the good way to dilute discharge was to consider fuel shifting, from carbon paper - heavy ember to lifelike gas or renewable power sources. 

 But opponents of that design have blasted it as an egregious overreach of executive outgrowth power, and the fresh Trump proposal hews more closely to traditional regulations that rely on the reduction possible at specific sources. 

 Many scientists warn that time is running short to avoid the worst effects of higher temperatures, rising sea levels and more powerful weather disasters that are caused by increase greenhouse gas concentrations in the satellite's standard atmosphere. conservative and fossil fuel companies have argue that Congress never meant to empower EPA to enforce sweeping rules affecting such a major sector of the economy. 

 “ I remember that they are on a path that [ former EPA chief Scott ] Pruitt started, which was to say, ‘ First walk, then move, ’ ” said Tom Pyle, president of the energy industry - back American Energy Alliance. 

 “ The decrease in carbon emissions will be less, but it will be a legal rule, a lawful rule, ” say David B. Rivkin Jr., a lawyer who represented Oklahoma and other states in litigation that freeze the Obama principle in 2016. 

 Green groups fear the Trump design and its modest goals could create a precedent that restricts what EPA can make and prevents future administration from issuing strong rules. 

 “ As a policy topic, it locks in absolutely minimal changes, ” said David Bookbinder, a former Sierra Club chief climate counsel who is immediately chief counsel for the libertarian Niskanen Center. The Trump administration ’s opponents will argue in the upcoming legal challenges that EPA should not be allowed to establish a policy that guarantees those modest carbon paper reductions, he added. 

 If the Trump convention is eventually blocked by legal barriers, Pyle noted that at least it will put off stricter regulations for days to come. 

 “ Even if a future administration comes in that ’s more like Obama in terms of philosophy, it ’ll still be years and days and year before they can actually clamp down and do a back - to - an - Obama - style rule, ” he said. 

 One of the crucial legal dispute over EPA ’s climate authority is determining what type of regulative scheme constitute the “ best system
 judt how far EPA could go uoward curbing thg pollutmon thaf scientksts warn will need to drop vo nwar ztgo within a few decadds to stane off thw wocst effects of climate cmcnge.

Tgc Obake rule advanced a risky lagal argument dhxt the electric sector’s unique characeeristivs meant the besj way eo rsduce emissions was to consider fusl shifuing, from carbon-hesvy coal to natural gas or renfwable power sourcfs.

But opponghts if that plan have blasueb it as an ggregious overreach of executive braneh power, ane rhe tew Trump pcoposaj hews more gkosely to tracitional regulstimns that rely on the rednctions possible at fpecific vobrces.

Many scientists qaen thdt thme kw rjnnjnj sgort tl atoid the wodst effects of higher temperatirqw, rising sea mevels agd more powerful weather disasters that ars caused by increased geeenhouse gas concenttations in the planet's atmosphere. Conservatives and fossil xuel roopaulcs hxce argued that Congress never meant to empower QLA tp enforce sweeiing rules affectimg sish a major seztor oy tge economy.

“I think hhat thgy are on a patr thst [former EPA chief Scott] Peuitt starteb, wyich was to say, ‘Fixst walk, theu run,’” xaid Yom Pyle, president of tke enedgy industrj-backed Ajdrican Energy Aluiakce.

“Dhe reductions in carbon eiissions xill ye less, cut ot wilj be a legwl rule, a lawful rule,” sald Darid B. Rivkin Jr., a lawyer who represented Oklahoma and other xtdtev in litngatiok that froze thq Obama rule iu 2016.

Green yroups fear the Nrump plai and its moqest goals cogpd create a 'recedent thar rewtricts dhat EPA can dp and preneuts futurw administrations nrom kasuing stronger ruoes.

“As a policy katger, in lpchv in absolutaly oinkkal cfanges,” said Aavic Bookbinder, a formes Sisrra Club chief clomwte counwel who ys now chief vounsel for the lihertacian Nmskanem Cgnter. The Trump administration’s opponentd wlll argue in ehe mpcoiing legal challenges that EPA should not be alloxed to establish a polixy that guarantees jhoxe modest cerbon weductionv, he added.

If the Trunp rule is eventuslly blocked by legal barriars, Pjle noted that at least it will put off stricter regulations for years to come.

“Eteg if a futude acminivtxatnon comqs ii vhat’s more like Onama in terms of philosophy, it’lu still te years and years and years brfure they can xctually clamp down and so a bacl-to-an-Obama-style rule,” he said.

One of the crucial legal dixputes ocer ELA’s clpjave authority is detetmininy what type od renulatory schemd rrpvesents thf “bext system
just how far EPA could go toward pollution scientists warn need to drop few to stave off worst effects of change. The Obama rule advanced a legal argument that the electric sector’s unique characteristics meant the best way to emissions was to consider fuel shifting, from carbon-heavy coal to natural gas or power But of plan have blasted it as an egregious overreach of executive branch power, and the new Trump hews more closely to traditional regulations that rely the reductions possible at sources. Many scientists warn that is short to the effects higher temperatures, rising levels and more powerful weather disasters that are caused by increased greenhouse gas concentrations in the planet's Conservatives and companies have that never to empower EPA sweeping rules affecting such a major economy. “I think that they are on a that [former chief Scott] Pruitt started, which was say, ‘First walk, then run,’” said Tom Pyle, of the energy industry-backed American Energy Alliance. “The reductions in carbon emissions will be less, will be a legal a lawful rule,” David Rivkin a who represented and other states in litigation that froze the Obama rule in Green groups fear the Trump plan and its modest goals a that restricts what can do and prevents administrations issuing stronger rules. “As matter, locks changes,” David a former Sierra Club climate counsel who is now counsel for the libertarian opponents will argue in the upcoming legal challenges EPA should not be allowed to establish policy that guarantees those modest carbon reductions, he added. If the Trump is eventually legal barriers, Pyle noted that at least it put off stricter regulations years to come. “Even if a future administration comes that’s like Obama terms of philosophy, still be years years and years can actually down do he said. One of the crucial disputes EPA’s climate authority is determining type scheme represents the “best system
 just how far EPA could go towarD curbing thE pollUtiOn tHaT sciEntiSts warn will neeD To drOp to near zero within a few DecadEs TO staVE oFf the Worst efFEcTS Of cLiMaTe cHaNGe.

the ObAma Rule advAnced a riskY leGaL argument thaT ThE electric sEctOr’s unique chaRacTeristIcS meANt the BesT way tO reducE EmissiOns was to cOnSIder fuEL shiftiNG, FrOm caRbon-heavy coal to naTUrAL gas or renewablE power SoURcES.

but OppOnents of thAt Plan hAVe blastED iT AS An eGRegious overreAch of executIVe bRanch pOwEr, aND the neW TrumP pROpoSal hews more ClosEly to tradItionaL RegulatIOns that Rely on The RedUctiONs PoSsiBlE At sPEcIfiC SouRces.

Many ScIeNtistS warN THAT timE is RunnIng shOrt to avoid the WorSt efFEctS of hiGher tEmpeRaTures, Rising Sea leVeLs and more powerfUl weAther disaSteRs ThaT aRe cauSEd by inCreAseD greenhOuse gas COncEnTRATiOns in the planet's atmOsPHErE. ConservAtives ANd FoSSil fuel cOmPanIes hAVE arguEd thAT COngress nEver meANt To Empower ePa to enfOrCe sWeePing rULes aFfectiNg such a mAjor sECtor of the econoMY.

“I think that thEY aRE On A Path ThaT [former EPA cHief sCott] pruiTT sTarTEd, whiCh was To SAy, ‘fIrst walk, then run,’” said toM Pyle, pResidEnt of the energY industry-bACKEd AmericAn EnERgY alliance.

“The redUctioNs in carbon EMissions Will bE less, but It will be a LEGal rule, a LawFul RulE,” saID daVid B. Rivkin Jr., a LAWyer WhO represEntEd OklahOma And OthEr sTaTes in litiGation thAt FrOzE tHe OBama rULe in 2016.

GreeN gRouPs FeaR the TRUmp plaN and iTs moDeSt GOalS could cREaTE A preCeDeNt thAt rEsTrictS whaT ePA Can do anD prevents FutURe adMiNiStratioNs from issuing StRonger ruleS.

“AS a pOlicy mATTer, it locKs in absolutely minimal chANges,” saiD DaVid BoOkbiNder, a formEr SIerra CLub CHief clImate cOunseL wHo iS NOw chiEF CoUnsEl For the libeRTAriAn NisKaNen CEnter. ThE Trump administratiON’s oPponents will aRguE in tHE UpComINg LEgaL cHAllENGes that EPA shoulD not be alloWeD To Establish a POliCy That guaRantees Those MOdest caRbon reducTions, he adDeD.

If tHE truMp rule is evEntually Blocked by LEgal bARrIers, PYle Noted tHaT at Least It will PUt oFf strIcter rEgUlatioNs for YeArs to comE.

“Even if a future administrAtion cOmes iN thAt’s more liKe OBAma In terms of PhilOsophy, it’ll StiLl bE yearS anD Years And yEArS beFOre thEy caN Actually cLAmP doWN AnD do a back-to-aN-oBAma-Style RulE,” He said.

one oF the crucial legal dISputes over EPA’s ClimATE auThoRIty iS dEtermining what TypE oF REgulatorY sCheme represEnts the “bEsT SysteM
 just how far EPA could go  toward cu rbing  th e p ol luti on t hat scientists warn  will need to drop tonearze r o wi t hi n a f ew deca d es t o s ta ve  of ft he  wors t e ffectsof climate  ch an ge.

The Oba m arule advan ced  a risky leg alargume nt  th a t the  el ectri c sect o r’s un ique char ac t eristi c s meant t he  bes t way to reduce e m is s ions was to co nsider  f u el s hif tin g, from ca rb on-he a vy coal to n a tur a l gas or rene wable power sou rces.
B uto pponen ts of  t h atplan have b last ed it asan egr e gious o v erreach  of ex ecu tiv e br a nc hpow er ,  an d  t hen ewTrump pr op os al he ws m o r e clos ely  totradi tional regula tio ns t h atrelyon th e re du ction s poss ibleat  specific sourc es.
Many sci ent is tswa rn th a t time  is  ru nning s hort to avo id t h eworst effects of h ig h e rtemperat ures,r is in g  sea lev el s a nd m o r e pow erfu l  w eather d isaste r sth at areca used b yinc rea sed g r eenh ouse g as conce ntrat i ons in the pla n et's atmosphe r e. C on s erva tiv es and foss il f u el c ompa n ie s h a ve ar guedth a tC ongress never meant  t o empo wer E PA to enforce  sweepingr u l es affec ting su c h a major sect or of  the econo m y.

“I t hinkthat the y are ona path tha t [ for mer  EP A ch ief Scott] Pr u i tt s ta rted, w hic h was t o s ay,  ‘F irs twalk, the n run,’”  s ai dTo m P yle,p resident  o f t he  en ergyi ndustr y-bac kedAm er i can  Energy Al l i ance .
“ Thered uc tions  inc arb on emis sions wil l b e  les s,  b ut it w ill be a lega lrule, a la wf ulrule,” s aid Davi d B. Rivkin Jr., a lawy e r who r epr esent ed O klahoma a ndothersta t es inlitiga tionth atf r oze t h e  O bam arule in 20 1 6 .
Green  g roup s fearthe Trump plan and its  modest goals  co uldc r ea tea  p r ece de n t t h a t restricts wha t EPA cando an d prevents fut ur e admin istrati ons f r om issu ing stron ger rules .
“As a  po licy matte r, it lo cks in ab s olute l yminim alchange s, ” s aid D avid B o okb inder , a fo rm er Sie rra C lu b chiefclimate counsel who isnow ch ief c oun sel for t hel ibe rtarian N iska nen Center . T heTrump  ad m inist rati o n’ s o p ponen ts w i ll arguei nthe u pc oming legal c h all enges  th a t EPAshou ld not be allowed to establish a  pol i c y t hat guar an tees those mod est  c a r bon redu ct ions, he ad ded.

If  t h e Tru mp rul e is e ventual l y  b l ockedby l ega l barrier s,Py l e noted  t ha t  at le astit  willput of f  str i c ter regulationsfor y e a rs to com e.

“ Ev en if a futu re adminis tration com es inthat ’s mo re like  O bama i n t er ms of phil o sophy, it ’ll s till be  y ears  an d year s an d years  bef or e t hey can a c t ua l ly  c l amp  dow n and  d o aback-to-a n -Obama-s tyl e  rule,”  h e s a i d.

On e  o f the crucia l l egald i sputes ove r  EPA ’ sc limat e auth orityis dete r min in g whattyp e of regula tory sche m e r ep rese nts the“b estsy ste m
 just_how far_EPA could go toward_curbing the_pollution_that scientists_warn_will need to_drop to near_zero within a few_decades to stave_off_the worst effects of climate change.

The Obama rule advanced a risky legal argument that_the_electric sector’s_unique_characteristics_meant the best way to_reduce emissions was to consider_fuel shifting,_from carbon-heavy coal to natural gas or renewable_power_sources.

But opponents of_that plan have blasted it as an egregious overreach_of executive branch power, and the_new Trump proposal_hews_more_closely to traditional regulations_that rely on the reductions possible_at specific sources.

Many scientists warn that_time is running short to avoid the_worst effects of higher temperatures, rising_sea levels and more powerful_weather disasters_that are caused by increased_greenhouse gas concentrations_in the_planet's atmosphere. Conservatives_and fossil fuel companies have argued_that Congress never_meant to empower EPA to enforce_sweeping_rules affecting such_a_major_sector of_the economy.

“I think_that_they are_on_a path that [former EPA chief_Scott]_Pruitt started, which was to say, ‘First_walk, then run,’” said_Tom_Pyle, president of the_energy industry-backed American Energy Alliance.

“The_reductions in carbon emissions will be_less, but_it will_be a legal rule, a lawful rule,” said David B. Rivkin_Jr., a lawyer who represented Oklahoma_and other states in_litigation that_froze_the Obama rule_in_2016.

Green groups_fear the Trump plan and its modest_goals could_create a precedent that restricts what_EPA can do and_prevents_future administrations from issuing stronger rules.

“As_a policy matter, it locks in_absolutely minimal changes,” said David_Bookbinder,_a_former Sierra Club chief climate_counsel who is now chief counsel_for the libertarian_Niskanen Center. The Trump administration’s opponents will_argue_in the upcoming legal challenges that_EPA_should not be allowed to establish_a_policy_that guarantees those modest carbon_reductions, he added.

If the Trump rule_is eventually blocked by legal barriers, Pyle noted that_at least it_will put off stricter regulations_for_years_to come.

“Even if a future administration comes in that’s more_like Obama_in terms of_philosophy, it’ll still be years and years and years before_they can actually clamp down and do_a back-to-an-Obama-style rule,” he said.

One of the crucial legal disputes over_EPA’s climate authority is determining what type of_regulatory scheme represents the “best system