Talk:Clean Power Plan

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Hfrankl.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 November 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nicolewin, Nicolewin7. Peer reviewers: Kaylacoughlin5, Abduabbadi.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Feedback from Prof. Gelobter
You have a copywrite issue in the way you cited the EESI article on the EJ Executive order. Go ahead and rephrase that paragraph to reflect the same info with more direct language...something like: "Executive Order 12898 requires the EPA to make environmental justice part of its mission and the Clean Power Plan includes tools to protect indigenous communities yada yada..." Check for other copywrite violations before your revisions are disappeared. This has happened on a couple of other pages. Rather than correcting the potential violations, folks are seeking to have prior edits deleted. Legally speaking you fall easily under "fair use" but a strict standard is being applied here. EJustice (talk) 07:03, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Forgive me...you didn't have a copyright issue because the material involved is under CCL, making the use of the material completely legitimate. Perhaps check on how it should be cited so you're ironclad (and rephrasing rather than quoting is I think more legit in any case).  Thanks!EJustice (talk) 17:37, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, about the mistake on EESI license. There was also text copied from CNN that from what I can tell fell in the same range of revisions, which would be the reason for the majority of the revision deletion since they are not under CCL. The last revision after the CNN text was removed might be able to be restored. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:44, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

No opposition/criticism listed?
The article only deals in positives and benefits. I might be wrong and this is actually a perfect plan, but shouldn't facts from the parties opposed to this plan be listed somewhere? Brettwardo (talk) 17:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Partly because of this. Some more cleanup / de-POV would be a good thing. - Bri (talk) 17:55, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I support the need for discussion of the "cons" of the CPP. This could include costs, economic impact and job dislocation. In addition there are potential unintended consequences which could reasonably be posited. The reference to the testimony of Prof. Tribe should be more thoroughly summarized. Reference to States opposing the plan as "Republican controlled" suggests there is only a political motive and not a deeper public interest in those states. Wcsuterjr (talk) 20:08, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Revert in intro
Hi,. Why did you revert adding "due to a lawsuit from states opposed to it" to the intro? I was trying to more clearly summarize the contents of the article. -- Beland (talk) 13:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry,, I did this by accident when I unintentionally clicked rollback, and I have since restored the content you added. Everymorning (talk) 13:50, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, heh, it happens. Thanks! -- Beland (talk) 15:00, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Removing section on Supreme Court ruling of October 9, 2018
I have removed a section that claimed that the Supreme Court "rejected any further court challenges to the Trump Administration's decision to repeal the Clean Power Plan on October 9, 2018." The source discusses a rejection of a different rule based on the Clean Air Act, one that has to do with hydrofluorocarbons; it is not related to the ongoing repeal and replacement of the Clean Power Plan. For ongoing information regarding the Supreme Court challenge to the Clean Power Plan, it is better to reference this page: http://climatecasechart.com/case/west-virginia-v-epa/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Circumambulator (talk • contribs) 22:13, 9 February 2019 (UTC)