Florida among 24 states suing over EPA carbon emissions rule

It’s worth noting as well that all but three of those states (Kentucky, Missouri, and North Carolina) have Republican attorneys general.

The rules also set targets for each state to cut energy-sector Carbon dioxide emissions 32 percent from 2005 levels by 2030. That’s the official step that triggers standing in court for individuals, governments and corporations to file lawsuits over it, but in an interesting turn of events, a bunch of states are going to file suits against the rules and a bunch more are going to intervene in favor of them.

During a visit to Little on October. 7, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy shook off criticism of the Obama Administration’s climate change rules after West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey had filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for communications between the EPA and the Office of the Federal Register regarding the publication of the Clean Power Plan. The EPA also argues that the regulation’s benefits, including improved health, will outweigh the costs.

Schmidt said the regulation, known as the Section 111 (d) Rule, was formally published by the EPA Friday. The fact is that they are imposing mandatory emission budgets on the states that pick winners and losers by functionally mandating an unprecedented build-out of wind, solar, and transmission lines while shutting down valuable power plants and stranding billions of dollars of investment – all at the expense of power providers and their rate payers. It was immediately challenged by 24 states, led by West Virginia and including Arkansas, in a US appeals court filing in Washington, D.C. Oklahoma filed a separate petition.

On the other side, 15 states and the District of Columbia say they are backing the Obama administration and will begin working to comply with the new rules.

Schilling Wednesday said the rule being published would unleash the avalanche of litigation with states poised to combat the rule as the implementation bomb is already ticking. The Clean Power Plan is expected to close hundreds more. Those are the findings of a poll taken in September by the University of Michigan and Muhlenberg College, another sign the tide is turning toward real action on climate change.

Attorney General Tim Fox calls it is an unlawful plan to radically restructure the way electricity is produced and consumed. “In particular, the EPA lacks authority to force States to fundamentally restructure their power portfolio to consume less coal-fired energy”. “The Clean Power Plan rests on a strong legal foundation”.

The proposal before the interim committee would have blocked the state from implementing the regulations unless the Legislature passed a law authorizing state agencies to move forward with them or if a federal court issued a final judgment upholding the legality of the Clean Power Plan. “This just keeps it on our plate so we can communicate with our constituents and come back with any concerns, because there is no question the Clean Power Plan will have a lot of impacts on the state”.

Barrett, who co-authored a letter in support of the Clean Power Plan with 33 other legislators, said the federal overreach argument by the state attorneys general suing the EPA doesn’t ring true to him.

The EPA plan is the cornerstone of the US administration’s commitment to reduce overall emissions by up to 28 per cent by 2025, as power plants contribute 40 per cent of USA emissions.

The other 23 states in the lawsuit are in a similar situation.