15 states seek to block EPA carbon rule

Some are embracing the new regulations as a chance for Kentucky to improve public health and the environment by moving away from coal and the pollution it causes during mining and burning.

Ohio’s electric utilities may get a breather on the issue of carbon dioxide their coal-and-gas-fired power plants put into the air.

“They totally changed the rule”. “It’s our wake up call”, the president said. With divisive partisanship handicapping any meaningful effort to overturn these rules on Capitol Hill, it is up to individual states to lead the charge. And so, it’s little wonder that more than 25% of California’s smog now comes from China.

Gina McCarthy, the EPA’s top official, said that the final rule set “fair, consistent standards across the country”. The Clean Power Plan requires electrical power plants to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 32 percent by 2030.

The coal industry and its most reliant states have called the rule an illegal example of federal overreach.

“… (The) agency has unusually chosen to immediately start the clock on the submission of State Plans even though it could be months before the States are permitted by statute to challenge the rule”, the petition stated.

Georgia does indeed have startup, shutdown and malfunction regulations, and the EPA previously approved them.

First, the agency assigned a single emissions limit for each type of fossil-fuel plant. A group of nine northeastern states have already been administering an emissions trading program for power plants, known as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, for six years, and California began implementing a multisector cap-and-trade program several years ago. “I will continue to fight regulations that are fundamentally bad for Wyoming and exceed the regulatory authority of the federal government”.

“Compared to the proposal, the pendulum has swung back toward the idea that it’s equitable for every state to be in the same neighborhood”, said Frank Holleman, a senior attorney at the Southern Environmental Law Center, a Virginia-based nonprofit.

We still have to choose wisely, however, and it is in all of our interests to make sure that Maine makes the right choices. North Dakota, under the original plan, would have had to reduce emissions by 10.6 percent over the roll out period to be in compliance.

“We sincerely hope that the Obama administration stops its gamesmanship and publishes the rule before the September 8 deadline so the states can challenge the rule on the merits”, Morrisey said.

“That fends off arguments that targets for states are arbitrary [and the] disparities [in the old rule] show that it’s not a rational approach”. Montana’s target had been to cut its emissions rate 21 percent by 2030, now that goal is 47 percent. PG&E and the state’s other utilities will have to keep investing to produce even cleaner energy in the years to come. “So that gives the EPA a lot of flexibility in how it executes because there are not years of precedent, but it also gives them some uncertainty in how the courts are going to interpret it”.

The lawsuit argues that while EPA has the authority to set national standards, it is up to states to determine how to meet them. The Clean Power Plan provides the basis for that strong and sustainable economy and opportunity for our country and our state. “But there’s not enough reductions to get anywhere near 63 million tons”. The agency will impose its own plan on states that fail to comply. No, not over the recently-finalized Clean Power Plan, at least not yet.

The coal industry opposes the plan, saying it would be hugely expensive for consumers and businesses.

So what are the specifics of the plan? “The Clean Power Plan is based on a sound legal and technical foundation”.

It appears that some states may be examining whether they have trade-ready elements in common with other states.