The states and cities wrote in their court petition that they “have a compelling interest in defending the Clean Power Plan as a means to achieve their goal of preventing and mitigating climate change harms in their states and municipalities”.
Advertisement
That pits them against 26 other states and a wide range of industry groups that have asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to strike down the rule.
The first-ever national standards for addressing power plant carbon pollution, the Clean Power Plan aims by 2030 to reduce those emissions 32 percent below 2005 levels.
The Clean Power Plan, along with the companion rule on new, modified, and reconstructed power plants, will control emissions by setting limits on the amount of climate change pollution that power plants can emit. The rules require states and utilities to use less coal and more solar and wind power as well as natural gas. He noted that Maryland has already taken steps to curb carbon emissions, mainly through a compact with eight other northeastern states to regulate their power plants.
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey were joined by their counterparts in Iowa and Virginia to announce their defense on a conference call with reporters Wednesday. “This is one more battle we must fight to protect manufacturing jobs in our state”, he added.
Across our state and in New York City’s five boroughs, these clean energy efforts are creating good-paying jobs, saving consumers significant money on energy, improving public health and driving business innovation, while helping safeguard the climate on which we all depend. Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster and Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway are Democrats. Oklahoma and North Dakota have filed separate challenges. “They represent nearly 80 percent of emission reductions required under the [Clean Power Plan]”.
Advertisement
State challengers have touted their bipartisan support. He recommended that, in developing the final rule, the EPA give Virginia more credit for recent investments in zero-carbon generation, offer Virginia more flexibility for adjusting its implementation plan if necessary, treat energy efficiency investments more equitably compared to clean energy generation investments, and help promote cooperation among neighboring states. His amicus brief filed in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals laid out Virginia’s history of interstate cooperation and cooperation with federal partners to clean up the Bay, as well as the economic, environmental, and intrinsic value of the Bay to Virginia.
