New in OS X: Get MacRumors Push Notifications on your Mac

Resubscribe Now Close

Apple Opposes Proposed Repeal of Clean Power Plan in United States

Apple has formally objected the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed repeal of the Clean Power Plan in the United States.


In a letter submitted to the agency today, Apple said repealing the policy would subject the company and its manufacturing partners to increased investment uncertainty in relation to clean energy, according to Reuters.
"Repealing the Clean Power Plan will subject consumers like Apple and our large manufacturing partners to increased investment uncertainty," the California-based company said in a filing to the agency.

Apple, which says it runs its U.S. operations fully on renewable energy such as wind and solar power, added that repeal of the plan would also threaten development and investments that have already been made in renewable power.
The EPA proposed to repeal the Clean Power Plan in October 2017 after U.S. President Donald Trump mandated a review of the Obama-era environmental policy, which would have required U.S. power plants to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions to 32 percent below 2005 levels by 2030.

Apple is the first company to publicly comment on the proposed repeal, which has yet to proceed due to legal challenges, according to the report. The policy's elimination is said to remain a priority of the EPA's administrator Scott Pruitt.

Apple's environmental website notes that 100 percent of the electricity the company uses to power its data centers, and 96 percent used by its facilities worldwide, comes from renewable energy sources like solar, hydro, and wind power. Many of Apple's suppliers have also committed to using 100 percent renewable energy.

Apple's environmental chief Lisa Jackson served as the EPA's administrator between 2009 and 2013 as part of the Obama administration.

Note: Due to the political nature of the discussion regarding this topic, the discussion thread is located in our Politics, Religion, Social Issues forum. All forum members and site visitors are welcome to read and follow the thread, but posting is limited to forum members with at least 100 posts.

Top Rated Comments

(View all)

20 months ago

Totally irrelevant what Apple thinks about this. This rule is applicable to power plants, not ivory tower companies like Apple. I very much doubt Apple really spends time understanding this rule or its impacts. And if they do, those resources should be spent thinking about Apple products or perhaps environmental rules that actually are relevant to them. This is very obviously an opportunistic statement by Timmy and company.

Sad state of affairs when the US government gives up trying to protect the environment such that a corporation feels the need to step in.
Rating: 87 Votes
20 months ago
Is there any Obama-era policy that Trump hasn’t reflexively reversed?
Rating: 46 Votes
20 months ago
If Apple is committed to renewable energy repealing this bill shouldn't alter their stance on the issue, no-ones saying you can't get 100% of your electricity from renewable sources. The only thing Apple will moan about is small companies that could never afford to put practices in place to meet the clean energy bill now don't have to, they can operate their businesses and provide competition whereas before only the rich would be allowed to play.
Rating: 36 Votes
20 months ago
It still entertains me to no end that we as a people debate if we should protect the environment. WHO CARES about climate change.....even if it isn't real, why trash the place we live? Who are we to trash this place for future generations in the name of making things easy for us now or saving money now? I appreciate that Apple tries to push us forward in this area and I am glad a company with as much money as they have takes up the fight. Lets be honest, big business with money is the only force that can defend the planet. We can protest all we want, but it is companies like Apple that can help influence change. If we all voted with our money, now that might help.....
Rating: 35 Votes
20 months ago
Totally irrelevant what Apple thinks about this. This rule is applicable to power plants, not ivory tower companies like Apple. I very much doubt Apple really spends time understanding this rule or its impacts. And if they do, those resources should be spent thinking about Apple products or perhaps environmental rules that actually are relevant to them. This is very obviously an opportunistic statement by Timmy and company.

Total bunk and nonsensical language: "Repealing the Clean Power Plan will subject consumers like Apple and our large manufacturing partners to increased investment uncertainty," the California-based company said in a filing to the agency.Apple, which says it runs its U.S. operations fully on renewable energy such as wind and solar power, added that repeal of the plan would also threaten development and investments that have already been made in renewable power."
Rating: 34 Votes
20 months ago
So a 32% reduction over 25 years is too much? Really? Honestly?? Only evil men would consider profits above the well-being of their offspring and fellow man.
Rating: 30 Votes
20 months ago
I went to Beijing China for the first time last week and I had to wear a mask so I can breathe. Enough said!!
Rating: 26 Votes
20 months ago
So how does EPA not requiring Apple to use wind & solar power prevent Apple from using wind & solar power if they want to? It's not like the EPA is proposing a rule change that says anyone is prevented from using wind & solar power. If Tim likes his windmills, Tim can keep his windmills.
Unless there is some implicit corporate welfare gift for using wind & solar power in the current EPA rule that Apple will loose if the rule changes?
Rating: 19 Votes
20 months ago

Tim Cook for president! And then he could bring all of his Apple clowns with him to the cabinet. Couldn't be any worse than the past four or five administrations.

The last administration (Obama) rescued the country from the brink of another Great Depression and oversaw a huge economic recovery WHILE improving the social safety net and environmental protection. Or do you just not pay attention to reality?
Rating: 18 Votes
20 months ago
translation, "we can afford it and want a barrier to entry for other players"

Not that I support reversing anyway but that's what Tim is speaking to.
Rating: 12 Votes

[ Read All Comments ]