The Obama administration's proposal to reduce dependence on coal fired power plants is not a "climate" proposal.
The "climate" connection assumes a causal relationship among extreme weather events that impact local economies, and human anthropogenic CO2. As climate scientists have repeatedly stated, this connection cannot be demonstrated with any certainty for any extreme weather event. The most that can be said is that weather extremes are consistent with projections from mathematical computer models used to test theories to explain observed climate variation. To date, these models have been unsuccessful in projecting present trends in global climate variation.
It remains to be seen whether or not a reduction of coal fired power plant effluent will have any effect on observed climate variation. Since global average surface temperature has remained statistically stable for the past decade and a half, while global atmospheric CO2 concentrations continue to rise linearly, the anthropogenic CO2/climate change connection is called to question. Observable results of a reduction in CO2 production, if any, must be weighed against complex and chaotic natural climate variation resulting from existing solar, geophysical and cosmic energy cycles.
Of greater concern is that this push to reduce existing energy sources, with no concomitant reduction in energy demand, will result in increased emphasis on energy production from nuclear power plants, fracked natural gas, and hydropower, prospects that threaten greater risks to public health, communities and their economies, and the natural environment.