A divided Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to halt enforcement of President Barack Obama's sweeping plan to address climate change until after legal challenges are resolved.
The surprising move is a blow to the administration and a victory for the coalition of 27 mostly Republican-led states and industry opponents that call the regulations "an unprecedented power grab."
By temporarily freezing the rule the high court's order signals that opponents have made a strong argument against the plan. A federal appeals court last month refused to put it on hold.
The court's four liberal justices said they would have denied the request.
Following the unexpected move, White House spokesman Josh Earnest said in a statement, "We disagree with the Supreme Court's decision to stay the Clean Power Plan while litigation proceeds."
Earnest said the administration's plan was based on a strong legal and technical foundation, and gave the states time to develop cost-effective plans to reduce emissions. He also said the administration would continue to "take aggressive steps to make forward progress to reduce carbon emissions."
The surprising move is a blow to the administration and a victory for the coalition of 27 mostly Republican-led states and industry opponents that call the regulations "an unprecedented power grab."
By temporarily freezing the rule the high court's order signals that opponents have made a strong argument against the plan. A federal appeals court last month refused to put it on hold.
The court's four liberal justices said they would have denied the request.
Following the unexpected move, White House spokesman Josh Earnest said in a statement, "We disagree with the Supreme Court's decision to stay the Clean Power Plan while litigation proceeds."
Earnest said the administration's plan was based on a strong legal and technical foundation, and gave the states time to develop cost-effective plans to reduce emissions. He also said the administration would continue to "take aggressive steps to make forward progress to reduce carbon emissions."
The plan aims to stave off the worst predicted impacts of
climate change by reducing carbon dioxide emissions at existing power
plants by about one-third by 2030.
Appellate arguments are set to begin June 2.
The compliance period starts in 2022, but states must submit their plans to the Environmental Protection Administration by September or seek an extension.
Many states opposing the plan depend on economic activity tied to such fossil fuels as coal, oil and gas. They argued that power plants will have to spend billions of dollars to begin complying with a rule that may end up being overturned.
Attorney General Patrick Morrisey of West Virginia, whose coal-dependent state was helping lead the legal fight, hailed the court's decision.
"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," Morrisey said.
Implementation of the rules is considered essential to the United States meeting emissions-reduction targets in a global climate agreement signed in Paris last month. The Obama administration and environmental groups also say the plan will spur new clean-energy jobs.
Appellate arguments are set to begin June 2.
The compliance period starts in 2022, but states must submit their plans to the Environmental Protection Administration by September or seek an extension.
Many states opposing the plan depend on economic activity tied to such fossil fuels as coal, oil and gas. They argued that power plants will have to spend billions of dollars to begin complying with a rule that may end up being overturned.
Attorney General Patrick Morrisey of West Virginia, whose coal-dependent state was helping lead the legal fight, hailed the court's decision.
"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," Morrisey said.
Implementation of the rules is considered essential to the United States meeting emissions-reduction targets in a global climate agreement signed in Paris last month. The Obama administration and environmental groups also say the plan will spur new clean-energy jobs.
In opposing the request for delay, the EPA argued that
states had plenty of time to comply with the requirements as the rule
was rolled out over the next 6 years.
"A stay that delays all of the rule's deadlines would postpone reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and thus contribute to the problem of global climate change even if the rule is ultimately sustained," U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli said in legal filings.
Environmentalists were stunned by the court's action, which they stressed did not reflect a decision on the relative strength of the Obama administration's case.
"The Clean Power Plan has a firm anchor in our nation's clean air laws and a strong scientific record, and we look forward to presenting our case on the merits in the courts," said Vickie Patton, a lawyer for Environmental Defense Fund, which is a party to the case.
To convince the high court to temporarily halt the plan, opponents had to convince the justices that there was a "fair prospect" the court would strike down the rule. The court also had to consider whether denying a stay would cause irreparable harm to the states and utility companies affected.
- CNBC contributed to this report.
"A stay that delays all of the rule's deadlines would postpone reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and thus contribute to the problem of global climate change even if the rule is ultimately sustained," U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli said in legal filings.
Environmentalists were stunned by the court's action, which they stressed did not reflect a decision on the relative strength of the Obama administration's case.
"The Clean Power Plan has a firm anchor in our nation's clean air laws and a strong scientific record, and we look forward to presenting our case on the merits in the courts," said Vickie Patton, a lawyer for Environmental Defense Fund, which is a party to the case.
To convince the high court to temporarily halt the plan, opponents had to convince the justices that there was a "fair prospect" the court would strike down the rule. The court also had to consider whether denying a stay would cause irreparable harm to the states and utility companies affected.
- CNBC contributed to this report.
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια :
Δημοσίευση σχολίου