At a Glance

The EPA finds that the Clean Power Plan could save even more lives than the Obama administration predicted.The EPA has called for the repeal of the rule without offering any sort of replacement.

An Environmental Protection Agency analysis of theObama-era Clean Power Plan found that even more lives could be saved by the climate rule than the Obama administration predicted, yet efforts to repeal the plan continue to move forward.

According to the , the Clean Power Plancould, at least in one scenario, prevent up to 4,500premature deaths per year by 2030.

The rule calls for a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from power plants to help reduce global warming. An added benefit of the plan is the elimination of other harmful pollutants such as sulfur dioxide, which can cause a slew of respiratory illnesses, heart disease and cancer.

The Obama administration predicted that by the time the rule was fully in place in 2030, carbon emissions from power plants would drop , an equivalent of 870 million tons less carbon in the atmosphere. The regulations would also preventbetween 1,500 and 3,600 premature deaths, saving an estimated $14 billion to $34 billion in health care costs.

The analysis released last month by Trump's EPA indicated that the plan could prevent between 1,900 to 4,500 premature deaths, at least according to one model used that is by the Energy Information Administration, the Washington Post reports.

The analysis presented different scenarios and outcomes to address what the Trump EPA says are “numerous concerns and uncertainties.”

The National Resources Defense Council contends by Trump's EPA are meant to "sow confusion about the benefits of reducing air pollution."

The EPA also suggests in the repeal proposal thatthe cost-benefit analysis should only consider the "targeted pollutant."

"The Obama administration relied heavily on reductions in other pollutants emitted by power plants, essentially hiding the true net cost of the Clean Power Plan by claiming benefits from reducing pollutants that had nothing to do with the rule’s stated purpose," the EPA noted in a .

"In other words, EPA could count only the climate benefits and would ignore the massive health benefits of the rule," the NRDC said in a statement. "This runs counter to basic principles of cost-benefit analysis."

The draft analysis further suggests that there is no health benefit derived from reducing particular matter pollution below certain "threshold levels." This conclusion goes against established, including research from the .

In early October, EPA chief Scott Pruitt called for the repeal of the rule without offering any sort of replacement. A and aindicates, however, that the agency is required to take action to reduce emissions under the Clean Air Act because greenhouse gases are considered pollutants that are harmful to human health.

U.S. Speaker of House Paul Ryanto repeal, saying it is the "right move for the economy and for the rule of law."

"The Obama administration’s signature climate rule was a vast, unlawful expansion of government authority into the energy sector with wide-reaching consequences for our economy," Ryan said in a statement. "The rule has been especially devastating to coal country. Congress will continue to work with the Trump administration to promote an energy strategy that gets government out of the business of picking winners and losers and instead encourages all types of energy sources.”

Environmental groups, scientists and government officials opposing the move to scrap the plan were quick to condemn the decision, noting that the agency is likely to face multiple lawsuits if no replacement plan is introduced.

Eric T. Schneiderman, New York’s attorney general, said in a statement that he will if the plan is repealed.

"I will sue to protect NewYorkers’ and put a stop to the Trump Administration’s irresponsible and illegal efforts to turn back the clock on public health," Schneiderman said.

“Fuel-burning power plants are one of our nation’s largest sources of climate change pollution, and common-sense science — and the law — dictate that EPA take action to cut these emissions," Schneiderman continued. "In fact, states like New York have demonstrated that greenhouse gases from power plants can be reduced dramatically, while holding the line on utility bills, maintaining grid reliability, and adding billions of dollars and thousands of jobs to our economies."

The proposal for repeal will be open for publiccomment in December.