The court dealt a serious blow to the Obama administration’s climate change agenda on Tuesday when it took the unusual step of delaying implementation of the Clean Power Plan until legal challenges to the regulation are completed.
Advertisement
Utah’s Deseret Power electric cooperative and the state of Utah oppose new regulations targeting the pollution blamed for climate change, and both joined other states and organizations in requesting the stay.
“The Supreme Court’s almost unprecedented but welcome action yesterday underscores what Americans have been saying all along – the President’s regulatory overreach is too costly, too invasive, and violates constitutional separation of powers”, Wicker said.
“It’s a stunning development”, Jody Freeman, a Harvard law professor and former environmental legal counsel to the Obama administration, said in an email.
The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the position Kentucky and the other 25 petitioning states have regarding the CPP. In fact, the case involved a Utah power plant operated by Deseret Power. “But most importantly, this Supreme Court decision is a win for coal miners and their families”.
But the ruling could force a tough choice on the state’s power companies.
Utilities Get a Breather from Clean Power, but for How Long? As previously discussed on this blog, the Clean Power Plan is created to reduce Carbon dioxide emissions from fossil-fueled power plants by 32 percent from 2005 levels by 2030, and each state has individual emission goals. The Supreme Court, in a landmark decision in 2007, MA v. EPA, ruled that the EPA was obligated to regulate greenhouse gases.
Advertisement
“We’ll continue to build upon the great strides we’ve made as a state – with the Clean Air Clean Jobs Act and our Renewable Energy Standard – to protect our public health and environment”, said Hickenlooper this week. He said Thursday that “science” is on his side and he’s confident that his administration’s rule is on legally the right path. More than 25 states have challenged the administration’s rules arguing they would be burdensome on the coal industry.
