Subscribe Sign in

Politics

EPA immediately sued over plans to repeal climate rules for power plants

Ars Technica
1 min read Rewritten in plain language

PolicyScienceClimate changeClimate PollutionEnvironmental Protection Agency

Show what we removed Rules applied: A3×2 C2×3 D2×4 D3 E3×2 all 30 rules
  • Days after finalizing a rule that would eliminate climate rules for power plants, the Environmental Protection Agency was sued by groups who say the EPA’s repeal was short-sighted and risked leaving the country’s single largest source of industrial climate pollution unchecked.
  • In the EPA’s announcement of the proposed repeal, the agency said that its action was based on “the best reading of the Clean Air Act.”
  • Meredith Hankins, NRDC’s federal climate legal director, accused the EPA of abdicating its legal responsibilities.
  • The EPA’s timing is terrible, and communities will experience unnecessary deaths if the court does not intervene, said Vickie Patton, who serves as general counsel for the Environmental Defense Fund.

4 sentences from our version of the report, chosen to cover it. Nothing here is written; every line is in the article below. How

Headline check

There is nothing in this headline a machine can check against the report: no figure, no name and no quotation.

Nothing was measured here, so nothing is claimed. How this is checked

Days after finalizing a rule that would eliminate climate rules for power plants, the Environmental Protection Agency was sued by groups who say the EPA’s repeal was short-sighted and risked leaving the country’s single largest source of industrial climate pollution unchecked.

On Thursday, the American Lung Association, the American Public Health Association, the Clean Air Council, Clean Wisconsin, the Environmental Defense Fund, and the Natural Resources Defense Council filed a petition requesting that the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit review if the EPA’s action conflicts with the Clean Air Act.

“Clean air is a basic human right,” APHA CEO Georges C. Benjamin said.

The petition alleges that the rule change could cause thousands of premature deaths.

In the EPA’s announcement of the proposed repeal, the agency said that its action was based on “the best reading of the Clean Air Act.”

The EPA may struggle to defend the rule given that its core mission is “to protect human health and the environment.” Meredith Hankins, NRDC’s federal climate legal director, accused the EPA of abdicating its legal responsibilities.

Rather than meaningfully addressing the risks that advocacy groups describe, the EPA relied on an argument that anyone who has ever monitored a climate lawsuit will recognize: that climate change is global, and “public health harms are too uncertain, conjectural, remote, and convoluted to tie specifically to the US power sector.”

The EPA’s timing is terrible, and communities will experience unnecessary deaths if the court does not intervene, said Vickie Patton, who serves as general counsel for the Environmental Defense Fund.

Shortened to 1 minute of reading, this version reads 5.6 on the Niral Score.

You are reading our version, not theirs. This is Ars Technica's report shortened to its most important sentences, in plainer words, with verdicts and loaded words taken out. Plain description stays, and so do adjectives that carry a fact, such as "former" or "federal". The reporting, the facts and the quotations are theirs — quotations are never edited — and the indicators beside it measure this version. Hover or tap Adjectives to see every one left in the text.

How this outlet filed it, and how we rewrote it

No other newsroom we read has filed on this event, so there is nothing to compare it with yet.

Outlet Niral ScoreAdjectivesSourcingSentimentHappiness
Ars Technicaas they published this story 14.6 6 78 -0.4 0
Mundane Readneutralized from Ars Technica 10.1 6 78 -0.3 6.6

Sign in to react.

This story is about the death of a child. Comments are closed on those, because the people closest to it are among the people who read them. If something here is wrong, tell us — that we do read.