The Clean Power Plan (CPP) of 2015 had almost nothing to do with emission reductions. In fact, the whole “indirect health benefits” mirage was invented by the EPA in 2013, using Harvard and Syracuse U, et al, for validation of the concept of “indirect health” at the cost of $45million in university grants and studies. Unsurprisingly, the EPA never submitted an official Cost/Benefit analysis of their Harvard study to Congress, although the EPA originally did submit a cost/benefit analysis that found the value of the CPP was $9 million. The benefit was for pregnant women who ate fish from Lake Michigan.
Actually, during a congressional hearing, EPA’s Gina McCarthy admitted the CPP had no measurable climate impact: One hundredth of a degree.
Also, there is significant evidence that the EPA and the “Indirect Health” study’s authors colluded (before-during-after) on the release of the Harvard/Syracuse study. See Chris Horner’s evidence about their collusion by doing a Google search.
P. S. The Indirect Health concept was invented starting in 2013 and it has only been used once in American history: Yep, while formulating the wildly expensive Clean Power Plan (well over $10 Billion per year), of which was to provide 4% of emission reductions value.