Exxon Mobil And Its Impact On The Coal Industry

The influence of fossil fuel industries – the coal mining industry in particular – has played a tremendous role in blocking the CPP’s implementation. ExxonMobil is one energy firm that has taken a particularly strong stance against the CPP. This company was incorporated on August 5, 1882, and is currently in the business of producing and selling crude oil, natural gas, and petroleum products (“Exxon Mobil Corp (XOM.N)”). The company’s CEO, Rex Tillerson, voiced the company’s opposition to the CPP in a speech on October 1, 2015. In his speech, Tillerson addressed over 200 top manufacturing executives on the National Association of Manufacturers’ Board of Directors (Timmons). He argued that the CPP “is an unfortunate example of the EPA exceeding

Founded in 2008, the ACCCE lobbies federal and state governments on behalf of the coal industry (Lavelle). Peabody Energy and Murray Energy, two of the country’s largest coal companies, are both members of the ACCCE. The group worked with the National Economic Research Associates to conduct a study titled “Energy and Consumer Impacts of the EPA’s Clean Power Plan”. Published November 7, 2015, the study included an analysis of the economic impact of the CPP and estimated the cost of the plan at $41 billion each year (“Status of Major EPA Regulations…” 1). This report was cited by the Trump administration to justify the proposed repeal of the CPP. Additionally, the ACCCE submitted comments to the EPA on April 26, 2018 in support of the proposed repeal of the Clean Power Plan. In its comments, the ACCCE argued that the CPP was illegal because the EPA did not have the authority to regulate carbon emissions under section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act (“American Coalition for Clean Coal…” 1). Additionally, according to the ACCCE, the Clean Power Plan would “establish bad environmental policy” due to its imposition of “massive costs on consumers and businesses” (“American Coalition for Clean Coal…”

On November 17, 2015, the Senate passed two resolutions concerning the CPP. The first, S.J. Res. 23, was introduced by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and would have voided carbon pollution standards for new and reconstructed power plants. The second, S.J. Res. 24, was introduced by Republican Senator Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia and would have voided the CPP for existing plants. Both resolutions were passed by the House on December 1 and vetoed by the president on December 18, 2015 (“Legislative Background...” 7). Because Congress’s resolutions did not pass, the repeal of the CPP began in earnest after the election of Donald Trump in 2016. On March 28, 2017, Trump signed Executive Order 13783, Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth, which prompted the EPA to review with CPP with the intent to revise or replace it (Rajecki 12). It led to the EPA’s proposed repeal of the CPP, which was announced by EPA director Scott Pruitt on October 11, 2017 (Grandoni 1). Because the CPP was intended to be the major pathway for complying with the U.S. commitments in Paris, Trump’s order also diminished the incentive for other countries to meet their own commitments (Sargent