In a win for states like Oklahoma challenging the Environmental Protection Agency’s new Clean Power Plan, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a stay Tuesday on those regulations while the lawsuit makes its way through the judicial system. The Clean Power Plan is the Obama Administration’s blueprint to reduce carbon emissions while transitioning power generation away from using coal. It also helps implement the promises made by the Obama Administration during the Climate Accords in Paris last year.
The stay came down to a party line vote. The conservative justices voting for it while the liberal leaning justices disagreed.
Attorney General Scott Pruitt joined the multi-state lawsuit against the rules. That case is now set to be heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia this summer.
West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey is leading the 29 state lawsuit. He praises the High Court’s decision to keep the rules from being implemented. West Virginia is a top coal producing state.
“Make no mistake – this is a great victory for West Virginia,” said Morrisey. “We are thrilled that the Supreme Court realized the rule’s immediate impact and froze its implementation, protecting workers and saving countless dollars as our fight against its legality continues.”
Oklahoma Senator Jim Inhofe, chairman of the Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee also praised the stay.
“The Supreme Court has delivered a major blow to President Obama’s legacy on climate change. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to stay the implementation of the so-called Clean Power Plan while the legal challenges to that plan are proceeding is a sign the court recognizes that the Obama administration has over reached is authority. Over half of the states, 24 national trade associations, 37 rural electric cooperatives, and 3 labor unions representing 900,000 members have used the EPA over these rules. These challenges highlight the enforceability problems, encroachment on state authority, skyrocketing electricity prices, and job losses during an already anemic economy that these regulations will cause. In the EPW Committee, we have held six hearings highlighting these problems. In November, the Senate passed two bipartisan CRAs against EPA’s regulations which subsequently passed the U.S. House of Representatives and were vetoed by the president. These regulations were the foundation of the president’s commitment to the Paris Climate Agreement. The Court’s action should demonstrate once again to the world that this president has committed the U.S. to actions that are unenforceable and legally questionable,” said Inhofe.
Of course, the White House believes the rules should have gone into effect.
“We disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision to stay the Clean Power Plan while litigation proceeds. The Clean Power Plan is based on a strong legal and technical foundation, gives States the time and flexibility they need to develop tailored, cost-effective plans to reduce their emissions, and will deliver better air quality, improved public health, clean energy investment and jobs across the country, and major progress in our efforts to confront the risks posed by climate change,” said White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest. “We remain confident that we will prevail on the merits. Even while the litigation proceeds, EPA has indicated it will work with states that choose to continue plan development and will prepare the tools those states will need. At the same time, the Administration will continue to take aggressive steps to make forward progress to reduce carbon emissions.”
