People from all aspects of the political spectrum have rallied around to either oppose or applaud the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan but there is one thing they simply cannot agree on.

Tenacious debate has sparked between states over whether the ruling will in fact decrease electricity bills, as suggested by the Obama administration or send them sky rocketing.

The EPA said it was taking steps to “shrink electricity bills roughly 8% by increasing energy efficiency and reducing demand” by 2030.

However, coal dependant states have strongly opposed the proposed regulation, claiming that the ruling to cut carbon emissions by 30% would threaten the reliability of power supply and drive up electricity costs.

The Pennsylvania Coal Alliance has spoken out against the changes.

Alliance CEO John Pippy said: “Once again, federal regulators are pushing impractical standards without regard for their consequences.”

“Those consequences include driving up electricity prices and eliminating the most reliable power source from the nation’s energy portfolio.

“Moreover, as developing nations increase their reliance on coal, it will put this country at a competitive disadvantage and global greenhouse gas emissions will increase rather than decrease.”

Pippy also slammed the effect the ruling would have on Pennsylvania jobs.

“Thousands of direct coal industry jobs will be lost in the 30 Pennsylvania counties that produce coal and an even greater number of indirect jobs will be lost throughout all other sectors of the state’s economy.”

In contrast, Texas is on board with the new ruling joining environmentalists, doctors and public servants all weighing in on the debate.

Texan environmentalists argue that action on climate change now will save money in the future in lower electricity rates, health costs, food prices and disaster-related insurance.

“If our state leaders handle these new carbon standards correctly, they can be a springboard for Texas into a new energy future,” Public Citizen's Texas office director Tom Smith said.

The health benefits of the proposed ruling have not gone unnoticed in Texas, with many practitioners having their say.

“The physicians of Texas have been working for over a decade to get the state to control air and water pollution from the oldest legacy coal-fired power plants that increase hospitalisations and deaths from asthma, lung disease and heart attacks in our patients,” Dallas County medical epidemiologist Robert Haley said.

“The new air pollution limits on carbon dioxide emissions announced by the EPA will significantly improve the health of Texans, while helping to forestall climate disasters in the lifetimes of our children.”

Pennsylvania’s Governor Tom Corbett certainly did not share in his optimism.

Corbett argued that his state already did its “fair share” to reduce carbon emissions and labelled any further proposals as an “assault on Pennsylvania jobs”

"In Pennsylvania, nearly 63,000 men and women, including 8,100 miners, work in jobs supported by the coal industry,” Corbett said.

“Anything that seeks to or has the effect of shutting down coal-fired power plants is an assault on Pennsylvania jobs, consumers, and those citizens who rely upon affordable, abundant domestic energy.”

The National Mining Association, based in Washington DC, dubbed the EPA ruling a “flawed approach” to combatting climate change.

“These rules are another step by the administration to take us to a more expensive and less secure energy future,” NMA CEO Hal Quinn said.

“These regulations, if finalised, would be a loss for American consumers, manufacturers and businesses nationwide.”

Quinn said he had no doubt the EPA’s approach would raise the cost of electricity for consumers while further “imperilling” the grid.

Of course, it is still very early days and the true ramifications of Monday’s ruling are yet to be seen.

What is certain is that Obama has taken a step no President has taken before him.

The ruling is a major step that could alter the nation’s attitude toward climate change permanently and, if successful, lead to cleaner skies and a thriving economy.

Or, if sceptics are correct, it could lead to years of energy poverty as American resources struggle in an international market.