GINA MCCARTHY:

Well, I was surprised that they decided to repeal the rule without proposing anything else in its stead, because, as the science dictates and as the law dictates, the EPA's obligated to regulate carbon pollution from this sector.

So it surprises me that they weren't a little bit more sensitive to the court challenges and what the courts have been telling EPA for many years, which is, you need to regulate this.

So, instead, they took a look at it and decided that they'd repeal, and then sometime later in the future, they would start asking questions, even fundamental ones, about whether or not they actually have to do anything. So I think that's a big risk to how that is being framed.

And I think the other concern that I have with this is, you know, our Clean Power Plan was really based on a solid understanding of how the energy system was working. It gave states maximum flexibility to achieve reductions. And it recognized sort of the low-cost renewable and energy efficiency that was coming into the market, and it anticipated the reasonable and cost-effective reductions we could achieve without threatening the energy system itself.

But it appears that the legal interpretation they want to take right now is that the administrator is supposed to be blind to how the energy system works, and instead the only things states are going to be allowed to do is look at their coal facilities, shift consumer money into keeping them alive, even if they're not marketable, which will limit the kind of protections you will get for public health, and take a significant bite out of our ability to address climate change and keep our kids' future safe.

So, it makes really very little sense in the energy world to even be looking at it like this, because states are already far ahead where we anticipated. And recent studies show that because of the low-cost renewable energy, we're going to be better off than we ever anticipated. The benefits are going to be larger and the costs are going to be smaller.