Sentinel readers know that the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this week issued an injunction blocking the EPA from implementing its Clean Power Plan, which would end America’s use of coal, its cheapest and most abundant source of electricity.
Advertisement
“If they don’t overturn it, I think coal will be gone”, he said. In the meantime, the Supreme Court stay increases the perception that the Clean Power Plan is in greater legal jeopardy and Obama’s successor may determine its fate.
U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., a member of the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works, said the high court “was right to stop implementation of the Obama administration’s arbitrary energy plan that favors unreliable wind power over more reliable clean sources of energy like nuclear power”.
Power plants produce about one-third of the carbon emissions in the USA, according to the EPA. This bill passed the House and Senate but was vetoed by President Obama. The House has also taken additional steps to curb the administration’s excessive red tape and protect small businesses and manufacturers, including the REINS Act (H.R. 427) and the Regulatory Accountability Act (H.R. 185). And in Paris, everybody conceded that the combined pledges by the United States, China, Europe and all the other nations still fall short of what’s needed to keep global warming within relatively safe levels.
Tom Sanzillo, director of finance for the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, a group that promotes a move away from fossil fuels, considers the Supreme Court decision “a procedural blip”. As we outlined in a report released late a year ago, our strategy gives us a pathway to meet our climate targets, even as the Clean Power Plan makes its way through the courts.
“This important action provides an orderly and efficient path forward by protecting utility customers against significant near-term costs and preserving states’ authority while the courts weigh ongoing legal challenges”, Kraft said.
The Clean Power Plan would reduce demand for coal by 30 percent nationwide, he said, harming all aspects of Montana’s coal industry. “Peabody had joined with other industry participants and attorneys general from dozens of states to contest the legality of the proposed regulations, and it is satisfying that the rule of law prevailed in this motion”, says Beth Sutton told the Greene County Daily World on behalf of Peabody Energy. “We’re optimistic the power plan will ultimately be rejected”. While EPA has made changes to the rule based on comments, there are no existing coal-fired power plants that, standing alone, can achieve the reductions required by the rule. Each of the Republican candidates has signaled a strong distaste for climate regulation, and it is hard to imagine any of them embracing the Clean Power Plan in office. The states argue the EPA exceeded its authority by, among other things, forcing states to fundamentally shift energy portfolios.
The high court’s surprising decision to issue a stay even before the Court of Appeals heard the case was seen by many as an indication it was hostile to the regulations.
Moving aggressively on clean energy solutions is just good stewardship.
Calpine spokesman Brett Kerr said Tuesday’s stay “was unexpected and disappointing”.
Advertisement
“It is our estimation that the inclusion of those tax credits is going to have more impact over the short term than the Clean Power Plan”, Schultz said aboard Air Force One on Wednesday as the president was flying to Springfield, Illinois.
