Thursday, February 11, 2016

U.S. Supreme Court Puts Hold On Clean Power Plan

US Supreme CourtThe U.S. Supreme Court has issued an injunction that delays implementation of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan’s greenhouse-gas regulations. EPA’s plan must wait until after a legal challenge in a lower court, as well as an expected appeal to the Supreme Court, are decided. These events are expected to take a year or more.

The Adirondack Council issued a statement today calling the ruling a disappointment. “A lengthy delay in the compliance deadlines for the Clean Power Plan is bad news for the Adirondack Park,” Council Executive Director William C. Janeway, said. “Our ski areas and our winter carnivals are taking a beating from recent warm winters. That hurts the local economy. Most of our towns are on the shores of lakes and rivers. Flooding has been a significant problem and remains a major concern for the future.

“The Adirondack wilderness isn’t faring any better,” he said. “Climate change threatens the viability of cold-water fisheries, especially trout in rivers and streams. Some of the park’s wildlife habitat is melting away northward, along with the colder weather.

“Without significant cuts in greenhouse gases, the Adirondack climate is expected to resemble that of Richmond, Virginia by the end of the century,” Janeway said. “That would make the Adirondack Park very different from the park we all know and love today.”

The Clean Power Plan is the national program for curbing climate-changing carbon emissions from power plants. In order to achieve its goals, most power plants are expected to stop burning coal. Advocates for the plan say that in addition to slowing the rate of climate change, it would help curb acid rain in the Adirondacks and reduce smog in New York’s cities.

Last year, coal producers filed a complaint with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, asking the court to overturn the Clean Power Plan. Plaintiffs also asked the appeals court to delay the compliance deadlines, saying they would harm the coal business. The appeals court ruled that no delay was warranted. Plaintiffs appealed that refusal to the Supreme Court, which granted the stay.

Voting in favor of the delay were Justices John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Anthony Kennedy. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen G. Breyer, Elena Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg voted against the stay.

carbon pollution from power plants chart courtesy EPAThat means the rule is suspended while the Court of Appeals hears the case and rules on its merits, and will remain suspended if the loser appeals that final decision to the Supreme Court. Both sides said they would appeal a loss in the appeals court.

The appeals court is slated to hear oral arguments in June. It is not expected to reach a verdict until the fall, so the rule will remain suspended through November’s Presidential Election. Consequently, the next president will decide whether the EPA will defend and continue to implement the plan.

The Clean Power Plan is designed to reduce carbon emissions from power plants by 32 percent by 2030 (based on 2005 emissions levels). EPA proposed the rule using its authority to protect public health under the Clean Air Act, after the Republican led Congress refused to take action to curb carbon emissions.

EPA said it had anticipated some delays due to legal challenges to the rule, and tried to work them into its implementation schedule for the Clean Power Plan. States are not required to file final compliance plans for carbon reductions until 2018. The first round of reductions is due in 2022.


Editorial Staff

Stories written under the Almanack's Editorial Staff byline are drawn from press releases and other notices.

To have your news noticed here at the Almanack contact our Editor John Warren at adkalmanack@gmail.com.




9 Responses

  1. Charlie S says:

    “These events are expected to take a year or more.”

    Until after the next Presidential erection in which the hopes are that a conservative will get in so that the raping and pillaging can begin anew.So that deregulation will be the order of the day!

    “Voting in favor of the delay were Justices John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Anthony Kennedy.”

    Who woulda ever guessed!

    • Boreas says:

      The delay also allows time for potentially retiring liberal Supreme Court seats to be filled by conservative justices if a conservative is elected president.

    • JohnL says:

      Yeah Charlie. And who would’ve guessed that those voting the other way were Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kegan.

  2. Tim-Brunswick says:

    Wow….that’s great news Charlie S. and Boreas!!

    Bout time we got some Conservative’s in a position to actually help the economy.

    Be nice if we didn’t have acid rain…..but it has already improved significantly as evidenced by the trout ponds in the ADK’s that have come back to life after being dead for years. Time for a little compromise kids!

    • Boreas says:

      Tim,

      Don’t forget who instituted the EPA and Clean Air Act. I think Richard would be a tad upset about his own party gutting his baby with 1000 cuts. Maintaining pollution was never the goal, but rather reducing and eliminating it.

      Acid rain and mercury release that is often associated with it are indeed still problems. Many other aspects of the environment need to be considered, not just a few trout ponds that were resilient enough to rebound a bit.

      • JohnL says:

        “EPA proposed the rule using its authority to protect public health under the Clean Air Act, after the Republican led Congress refused to take action to curb carbon emissions.”
        It should be on hold. The EPA is acting just like our President has when Congress didn’t do what he wanted them to. Congress makes laws, not the EPA. If Congress didn’t act, it didn’t see fit to do so. Laws that affect major elements of the economy should not be left to faceless, nameless, unaccountable bureaucrats like the EPA. Want an example of the trustworthiness of the EPA?? Flint, Michigan.

      • Todd Eastman says:

        Nixon instituted the CWA and created the EPA because the tools beginning to be implemented by the Justice Department to enforce environmental protections were far stronger than what the CWA and the EPA were later tasked with.

        Nixon was for the environment, the same Tricky Dick as he was in all other aspects of his wretched life…

        • JohnL says:

          Careful Todd, your politics are showing. Not sure why you reference Richard Nixon. He resigned as President 42 years ago. Time to let it go!

  3. Charlie S says:

    Tim-Brunswick says: “Bout time we got some Conservative’s in a position to actually help the economy. ”

    Whose economy Tim?

Leave a Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *