The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday delivered a major blow to President
Barack Obama by putting on hold federal regulations to curb carbon dioxide
emissions mainly from coal-fired power plants, the centerpiece of his
administration's strategy to combat climate change.
The court voted 5-4 along ideological lines to grant a request by 27 states
and various companies and business groups to block the administration's Clean Power
Plan, which also mandates a shift to renewable energy away from fossil fuels.
The highly unusual move by the justices means the regulations will not be
in effect while a court battle continues over their legality.
The White House on Tuesday night said it disagrees with the court decision
but said it expects the rule will survive the legal challenge.
"We remain confident that we will prevail on the merits," the
White House said, adding that the Environmental Protection Agency will continue
to work with states that want to cooperate and that it will continue to take
"aggressive steps" to reduce carbon emissions.
The plan was designed to lower carbon emissions from U.S. power plants by
2030 to 32 percent below 2005 levels. It is the main tool for the United States
to meet the emissions reduction target it pledged at U.N. climate talks in
Paris in December.
A senior administration official told reporters on Tuesday night that
despite the court's "procedural decision," the United States can
deliver those commitments and take "new and additional steps" to lead
internationally on climate change.
The Supreme Court's action casts doubt on the long-term future of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's rule because it increases the chances that
the conservative-leaning Supreme Court would take the case after a lower court
issues a decision on the legality of the regulations and ultimately would
strike it down.
As recently as June, the high court ruled 5-4 against the Obama
administration over its efforts to regulate mercury and other toxic air
pollutants.
The states, led by coal producer West Virginia and oil producer Texas, and
several major business groups in October launched the legal effort seeking to
block the Obama administration's plan. The states said the emissions curbs
would have a devastating impact on their economies.
West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey described the Supreme Court
action on Tuesday as a "historic and unprecedented victory" over the
EPA.
Tom Donahue, chief executive officer of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said
the high court stay "will ensure that America will not be forced to make
costly and irreversible implementation decisions based upon an unprecedented
regulation until judicial review is complete."
For Obama, executing his domestic and international climate change strategy
would be a key legacy accomplishment as he nears the end of his time in office
in January 2017.
House of Representatives Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said, "The
Supreme Court’s deeply misguided decision to stay the implementation of the
Clean Power Plan will enable those states that deny climate science to slow
progress in reducing the carbon pollution that threatens the health of all
Americans."
House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy welcomed the Supreme Court's move,
saying it "has now stopped this illegitimate abuse of power after 27
states revolted against the president’s anti-energy agenda."
The court action also means that, with Obama leaving office in January
2017, the next president will have a say on whether to continue defending the
regulation.
Before that, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit, which denied a similar stay request last month, will hear oral
arguments in the case on June 2 and decide whether the regulations are lawful.
"This is certainly a surprise and it suggests the court has serious
concerns" about the regulation, said Jonathan Adler, a professor at Case
Western Reserve School of Law.
DIVIDED COURT
The brief order from the justices said that the regulations would be on
hold until the legal challenge is completed. The court's five conservatives all
voted to block the rule. The order noted that the four liberals would have
denied the application.
Under the EPA rule, each state must submit a plan to comply with its
emission-reduction target by September 2016 but can also request a two-year
extension.
The challengers contended that the Obama administration exceeded its
authority under the Clean Air Act, the key law that addresses air pollution.
More than a dozen other states and the National League of Cities, which
represents more than 19,000 U.S. cities, filed court papers backing the rule.
Jeff Holmstead, a lawyer for coal-powered utilities that challenged the
rule, said the court has never before blocked an EPA rule. "To say it's
unusual is a bit of an understatement," Holmstead added.
Sean Donahue, a lawyer for environmental groups that support the law, said
the court action was "surprising and disappointing." He added that
"we remain very confident in the legal and factual foundations for EPA's
rule."
Sam Adams, U.S. climate director for the World Resources Institute, said
fighting to uphold the rule is important to ensure the Paris agreement stays
intact.
"The benefits of the Clean Power Plan are definitely worth fighting
for, not only for the United States but the high expectations it hopes to set
internationally," he said.
No comments:
Post a Comment