Barack Obama might be planning to ignore or circumvent the Supreme Court of the United States and violate the order that came down this week halting the Clean Power Plan rule. We will have to sees what he does.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday ordered the EPA to halt implementation of its Clean Power Plan (CPP) rule which is the centerpiece of the Obama administration’s climate strategy. This SCOTUS order will be in place while challenges to the rule work their way through the courts.
It’s the first time the Supreme Court of the United States has preemptively stayed a regulation while lawsuits are pending.
It’s probably because of the EPA mercury rule. When the EPA’s mercury and toxic air rule was put in place it was fully implemented by the time it got to SCOTUS.
However, the White House is pushing ahead anyway with their Clean Power Plan despite the ruling.
By issuing the temporary freeze, a 5-4 majority of the justices signaled that opponents made strong arguments against the rules. The high court’s four liberal justices said they would have denied the request for delay.
Obama’s rule demands a cut of one-third by 2030. To provide an example of the effect this has, in Texas, the state must cut an annual average of 51 million tons of carbon to reach its federal target, a reduction of about 21 percent from 2012 emissions. Texas is also one of 24 states suing the Environmental Protection Agency over the plan.
The rule is meant to destroy fossil fuels by making them too expensive to use. It’s a way around Cap & Trade which failed to pass.
Josh Earnest said (after claiming the rule is based on sound economics and technology) that the administration will continue to “take aggressive steps to make forward progress to reduce carbon emissions.”
We will find out what that means.
Judge Napolitano explained that this is a historical decision. The EPA rules are always in effect once issued and while being challenged.
The SCOTUS told the lower court to prevent the EPA from enforcing its own rules while it’s in court.
The last time over the mercury and toxic rule, the SCOTUS threw it out, but it still cost the plants $10 billion dollars.
The presumption that the EPA is full of experts and are usually assumed correct is no longer.
There are two issues which the SCOTUS is interested in hearing.
1. When congress wrote the Clean Air Act, did it intend the EPA to pass such onerous rules that the plants would go out of business?
2. Did Congress intend the EPA to order the sovereign states to implement their rules at the expense of the states’ independence and sovereignty?
The judge thinks the rule overreaches and the SCOTUS will come to the same decision.