Gov. Scott Walker orders agencies not to prepare for Clean Power Plan

It’s not hard to imagine that any Supreme Court appointment by Obama will vote the other way, giving the EPA a 5-4 victory, when the Clean Power Plan comes before the court again.

Moxley also said something as consequential as the Obama climate plan should have been subject to a vote in Congress. Its imposition through regulation instead of law was a symptom of the standoff between the Obama administration and Congress that has been bad for the nation, he said. The reason Schimel joined the suit against the EPA is because the executive branch of the United States is overstepping its authority. In Colorado, the plan is to reduce emissions from 2,000 tons per megawatt hour to 1,174 – a roughly 40 percent reduction. If states don’t develop compliance plans, the EPA would do so under the rule. That means real costs for manufacturers and heavy industry as well as consumers.

However, if the Clean Power Plan is ultimately vacated in full or in part by the court, we’ll have to find a new way to regulate carbon pollution from power plants.

If Srinivasan were appointed, he would have to step aside on the Clean Power Plan case because of his involvement in the case at the appellate level.

Then things get more complicated. The plan’s survival-and its entry into law-could decide the fate of the Paris Agreement, the first worldwide treaty to mitigate climate change. Scalia on Monday escalated a war of words with a prominent appeals court judge, saying the judge lied in a recent criticism of Scalia’s judicial philosophy. If he doesn’t, it’s possible the court will be deadlocked, which means the D.C. Circuit’s ruling will stand. If the plan is upheld, it would require a majority of the Court to strike it down. That sets up the possibility of another 4-4 tie.

She said that opponents to the rule are forecasting that the Supreme Court will eventually reject it because it’s almost unprecedented for the court to stay a federal regulation when no court has yet ruled on its legality. Whatever the Supreme Court does, coal is pretty much dead. The terms of the Court’s stay were broad: It ordered that the Clean Power Plan could only enter into force after the Court itself ruled; or if the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals heard its case (as it is scheduled to do this summer) and the Supreme Court declined to hear the inevitable appeal. And it inexplicably breaks with past rulings in which the high court has called for federal rules to limit the carbon pollution that is driving climate change. And many, even without the CPP, are likely to see those changes through.

The Monroe County Environmental Quality and Sustainability Commission hosted a public forum addressing the EPA’s Clean Power Plan and how it could affect Hoosiers.

Hedke said that issue had been discussed during a private meeting he attended last week in which the Supreme Court’s action was discussed.

Given what liberals believe to be the stakes of the next Supreme Court appointment, it is important for Wisconsin that any appointment to the court be made by the next president.

In particular, Alabama has a vested interest in the upcoming challenge of the Obama Administration’s so-called Clean Power rule.

It’s the president’s job to nominate Supreme Court justices for any vacancies, and it’s the Senate’s job to vet and approve them. “But when it threatens serious harm to society, it shouldn’t be surprised when the rest of the political system fights back”.