As to its merits, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which denied a similar stay request in December, will hear oral arguments beginning on June 2.
Advertisement
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”.
“The Supreme Court has surprised all parties by freezing obligations under EPA’s Clean Power Plan (CPP) until it fully reviews the plan, which is likely by mid-2017”. The rule is expected to result in the closure of coal-fired power plants across the country.
Montana’s top Republican officeholders and the state GOP hailed the ruling as blow against the Obama administration’s “gross abuse of executive power”.
The Supreme Court’s decision to stay the Clean Power Plan was unexpected given the very limited instances in which the higher courts have granted such stays of environmental rules.
“The Clean Power Plan has a firm anchor in our nation’s clean air laws and a strong scientific record, and we look forward to presenting our case on the merits in the courts”, said Vickie Patton, a lawyer for Environmental Defense Fund, which is a party to the case.
The delay creates another layer of uncertainty for everyone from the struggling coal companies and power plants endangered by stricter environmental regulations to the renewable energy and energy efficiency advocates buoyed by them. It may have been unusual in that the Court acted without first letting a lower court first rule on the case, but time was of the essence. The justices had voted 5-4 in favor of a stay. As is customary, only the dissenting Justices were named on the order-Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor.
To convince the high court to temporarily halt the plan, opponents had to convince the justices that there was a “fair prospect” the court might strike down the rule.
Power plants produce about one-third of the carbon emissions in the USA, according to the EPA.
Less than 48 hours after the Supreme Court’s ruling, at least a dozen governors, from California to Virginia, and from Colorado to Pennsylvania, announced that they will continue developing their plans to limit power plant carbon pollution.
The Clean Power Plan will not go into effect, if at all, until after the 2016 presidential election. The next President’s administration will likely have to decide whether to continue the government’s legal support of the rule.
Moreover, states that stop work now will not be “left at a disadvantage”.
Under the regulation, states will submit their own plans for meeting carbon reduction goals.
That said, Larsen acknowledged that some countries may be concerned since the Clean Power Plan is the “most global visible climate policy” that Washington has presented thus far. “Climate change is a global imperative, and we must find ways to transition our energy industry into a decarbonized future”. But state officials have made early moves to develop a compliance plan in case the Clean Power Plan survives legal challenges. The administration and other deniers of economic harm must now acknowledge that two of the three branches have expressed grave doubts about the EPA’s costly power plan.
Focus will be on the DC Circuit over the next six months.
Advertisement
But it is hard to see how this optimistic outlook becomes more certain with the addition of the uncertainty caused by the Supreme Court decision. As Administrator McCarthy told Congress this week, “Nothing is going to be implemented while the stay is in place”.
