Bennet’s Clean Power Plan vote support leads to 14K+ premature deaths

Bennet’s vote, Clean Power Plan lead to 14K+ premature deaths according to non-partisan Institute for Energy Research study

DENVER—Denver’s KUSA-9News fact-checked Conservation Colorado’s Clean Power Plan ad for accuracy in its Truth Test segment last night. The ad claims the Environmental “Protection” Agency’s so-called Clean Power Plan will lead to better air quality and a better way of life for Coloradans with respiratory issues, but failed to mention the plan’s negative impacts on human life.

9News political reporter Brandon Rittiman said:

“This is an opinion of what Bennet’s vote means. […] Bennet voted ‘No,’ not to block the EPA regulations. Those who voted yes argue the regulations aren’t needed and will just hurt the economy.”

But, contrary to what the feel-good ad proclaims, deceptively tugging on the heart strings of common voters to advocate for increased government-control, the Clean Power Plan will actually lead to premature deaths. According to the non-partisan Institute for Energy Research, the EPA’s new rules cause over 14,000 more deaths by 2030.

Advancing Colorado Executive Director Jonathan Lockwood released the following statement:

“Coloradans who want to see more lives saved through public policy should oppose the Clean Power Plan because of its actual negative health-wealth impacts causing more premature deaths, and should be incensed Bennet is playing politics with our lives once again. Bennet shouldn’t be siding with an organization that dumped millions of gallons of toxic waste into our beautiful rivers over common-sense reform and pro-energy policies. Pro-environmental measures can be taken without attacking jobs, the economy, and our health, but Bennet’s vote ignores this clear fact.”

From the institute’s report:

“The EPA acknowledged this ‘health-wealth’ connection in the past and has used it in economic analyses, stating: ‘people’s wealth and health status, as measured by mortality, morbidity, and other metrics, are positively correlated. Hence, those who bear a regulation’s compliance costs may also suffer a decline in their health status, and if the costs are large enough, these increased risks might be greater than the direct risk-reduction benefits of the regulation.’”

Coloradans oppose the EPA’s Clean Power Plan due to its negative impacts including increases in electricity bills, effects on minority communities and negligible effects on global temperatures or carbon emissions, according to a poll conducted by Magellan Strategies.

The Colorado Supreme Court rejected a request by Gov. John Hickenlooper to weigh in on Attorney General Cynthia Coffman’s authority to sue over the so-called Clean Power Plan. Coffman recently joined a multi-state legal challenge to the Obama Administration’s Clean Power Plan.

According to the Denver Business Journal, Hickenlooper recognized the EPA’s proposal would be “a challenge,” but said he intends, “to develop a compliant Clean Power Plan.” Additionally, Bennet has long-been known as a staunch advocate for the Clean Power Plan.

The controversial and questionable, Clean Power Plan will require power plants to reduce emissions by 32 percent from 2005 levels between now and 2030. The plan will impose burdensome regulations at power plants, essentially ignore efforts like those in Colorado, and hurt Coloradans, who would be forced to foot the bill for compliance costs. In addition to all of the negative economic impacts, by the EPA’s own models, the carbon rule will limit global temperature rise by an inconsequential 0.018 degrees Celsius by 2100.