This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2015, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.

Utah's political leadership wasted little time in denouncing President Barack Obama's plan to cut carbon emissions from the nation's power plants.

The "Clean Power Plan," released Monday, is expected to accelerate the nation's move away from coal in favor of renewable energy sources and possibly nuclear power.

But it is "unjustified and potentially devastating for Utah and the nation," according to Sen. Orrin Hatch, who vowed to do "everything in my power" to thwart the new regulation.

"This rule could destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs and impose significantly higher utility bills on families and businesses while producing no meaningful climate benefits according to the EPA's own model," Hatch said. "Over the last 30 years, technological advances driven by the free market have led to significant improvements in air quality. We will continue to see further improvements without the unnecessary burden these new regulations place on hardworking Americans."

The president calls his plan a moral obligation, however, warning anew that climate change will threaten future generations if left unchecked.

Touting the plan at a White House event, Obama said the unprecedented carbon dioxide limits are "the single most important step" America has ever taken to fight climate change. He warned that because the problem is so large, if the world doesn't get it right quickly, it may become impossible to reverse, leaving populations unable to adapt.

"There is such a thing as being too late when it comes to climate change," Obama said.

Utah leaders' biggest concern is associated with the rule's goal of reducing demand for coal, which releases more carbon dioxide than any other fuel source. Coal mining is a crucial industry for Utah's rural heartland.

Power plants account for roughly one-third of all U.S. emissions of the heat-trapping gases blamed for global warming, making them the largest single source. Already, Obama has curbed greenhouse gas emissions from other major sources, including cars and trucks.

The final version of the president's plan imposes stricter carbon dioxide limits on states than was previously expected: a 32 percent cut by 2030, compared with 2005 levels, the White House said. Obama's proposed version last year called only for a 30-percent cut.

It also gives states an additional two years — until 2022 — to comply, yielding to complaints that the original deadline was too soon. States also will have an additional year to submit their implementation plans to Washington.

But Utah could bear a heavier burden for meeting the goals because it exports much of the power produced within its borders and relies far more on coal for its own electricity. About 80 percent of the power produced in Utah comes from the black rock versus less than 40 percent for the nation as a whole.

A key question remains as to whether Utah would get credit for the wind, solar and geothermal power it produces but sells to out-of-state utilities, observers say.

Meanwhile, environmentalists hailed the rule as a long-overdue step that affirms the nation's trend away from coal. It carries collateral benefits that come with not burning coal, they say.

"The Clean Power Plan is a chance for Utah to move towards cleaner sources of energy," said Lindsay Beebe, Sierra Club's Utah representative. "Utah's coal-fired power plants emit pollution that contributes to smog, bad air days, and haze at our national parks, hurting our health and negatively impacting our quality of life."

Beebe noted that two of Rocky Mountain Power's plants — Hunter and Huntington outside of Price — cause 40 percent of Utah's haze pollution from the electric sector.

"We can reduce our use of coal to help make our state cleaner and healthier," she said.

HEAL Utah and others say clean power alternatives will offset any job losses stemming from reduction in coal.

"Industry and their allies love to 'cry wolf,' every time a new program to protect health and the environment is unveiled," said HEAL Executive Director Matt Pacenza. "Those claims are always unfounded. And they will be again today. This modest shift away from coal power toward renewables and efficiency will offer Utah benefits far beyond its costs."

Utah regulators were more guarded in their assessment.

"It's clear that the rule is a significant regulatory expansion. It's early to tell what the impacts are on Utah," said Alan Matheson, the state's new director for the Department of Environmental Quality. "We worked hard to ensure that power generated in Utah is clean, reliable and affordable. Our concern is that this rule might upset some of that balance. We are going to evaluate it and use some of the flexibility provided in the rule to maintain that balance."

On Monday, Obama was joined in the East Room by Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy and by parents of asthma patients. The Obama administration has sought to draw a connection between climate change and increased respiratory illness in vulnerable populations.

Utah Gov. Gary Herbert and leaders of other states asked the EPA to put the rules on hold while legal challenges play out — a notion that White House press secretary Josh Earnest dismissed. In the absence of a voluntary delay, opponents plan to ask the courts to issue a stay.

Many Republican-led states have said their states simply won't comply. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who has encouraged GOP governors to take that step, vowed to use legislation to thwart the president's plan.

The pollution controls form the core of Obama's ambitious and controversial plan to drastically reduce overall U.S. emissions, as he works to secure a legacy on fighting global warming. Yet it will be up to Obama's successor to implement his plan, which has attracted strong opposition from the field of Republican presidential candidates.

The Obama administration estimated the emissions limits will cost $8.4 billion annually by 2030.

The actual price won't be clear until states decide how they'll reach their targets. But energy industry advocates said the revision makes Obama's mandate even more burdensome, costly and difficult to achieve.

Another key change to the initial proposal marks a major shift for Obama on natural gas, which the president has championed as a "bridge fuel" whose growing use can help the U.S. wean itself off dirtier coal power while ramping up renewable energy capacity. The final version aims to keep the share of natural gas in the nation's power mix at current levels.

The Associated Press contributed to this story