“States have every incentive to move ahead with this planning process and to continue to move ahead with advancing clean energy, and we’re fully confident that will continue while this legal process stays out”, she said.
Advertisement
“The Supreme Court did something unusual”, Obama said referring to the ruling supported by five of the nine Supreme Court justices.
The Supreme Court has its judges divided as they vote 5-4 against Presidents Obama’s new power plant regulation.
You may, however, comment through Facebook.
“This U.S. Supreme Court order is a huge victory for Florida families, businesses and the rule of law”, Bondi said in a statement released on Wednesday.
Last summer the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency mandated that states reduce carbon emissions by one-third, with compliance plans due later this year.
The Supreme Court’s decision ultimately approves the requests of 27 states and several companies to put a halt to the CPP.
Now the fate of Obama’s Clean Power Plan lay uncertain as the timeline for its implementation has been pushed back, and Obama’s administration is into its final 11 months. The court is scheduled to hear arguments in June, while the states are supposed to have their implementation plans to the EPA by September. They also say the plan would constrain the constitutional sovereignty of states to make any rules for industries operating inside their boundaries. I encourage the EPA to keep working with states that choose to continue to develop their Clean Power Plans and prepare the tools those states will need.
Advertisement
The rule, which looks to cut carbon emissions from the power sector by 32 percent by 2030, is the centerpiece of Obama’s climate agenda, and the stay means he will leave office with its fate uncertain. Following that, states would have to enact the plan by 2022. Under his direction, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment said it will continue to hold public meetings and gather input on the plan. “This a legal decision that says, ‘Hold on until we review the legality.’ We are very firm in terms of the legal footing here”.
