Fifteen US states seek to block EPA carbon rule

“EPA seeks to save the [final rule for the CAA] by adopting an interpretation of the phrase ‘regulated under [Section 112]’ that the agency never suggested before litigation in this court this year”, the attorneys general said. This common-sense plan will curb carbon pollution from coal-fired power plants – the largest contributors of these harmful emissions – for the first time. “The AGs’ breathless claims of immediate harm have no substance”. In calculating targets for emissions reductions, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency assumed that states would invest in home insulation, LED lightbulbs, and other efficiency measures.

The EPA responded only that it would consider the request. I also have cosponsored the Stop EPA Overregulation of Rural Americans Act which would repeal the EPA’s most recent rule for new residential wood heaters that disproportionately hurts folks in rural communities, and the Regulatory Accountability Act that would ensure agencies adopt the least costly alternative for a regulation. EPA spokeswoman Liz Purchia said Thursday the carbon rules, known formally as the Clean Power Plan, is “based on a sound legal and technical foundation”.

Montana has one of the most strict compliance requirements in the country under the final version of the rule, with the EPA mandating that we reduce our carbon emissions rate from power production 47 percent by 2030. The targets are clear, as are the many routes a state can take to achieving them.

Kharbanda said the plan sends a strong signal to those who manufacture components for wind, solar, and other renewable energy sources. The questions become even more concerning if your “reason” seems to include punishing your political enemies. Ohio will ask for that extension, he said.

Minnesota U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison and state Rep. Paul Thissen, writing in the Star Tribune, note Minnesota has benefited from clean energy laws implemented by former Gov. Tim Pawlenty in 2007, which required utilities to provide 25 percent of their electricity from renewable energy by 2025 – with every provider on track to meet its goals. In January 2015, President Obama and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi issued a joint statement to enhance bilateral climate change cooperation in several areas including phasing down the so-called “super greenhouse gases” or hydroflurocarbons (HFCs)through theMontreal Protocol this year, a clean energy research partnership, clean energy finance to support India’s ambitious renewable energy targets, air quality cooperation, vehicle standards, resilience modeling, and other areas.

He said his office will begin meeting with utilities, other industries and environment groups in the fall, probably in October, to start on a preliminary plan.

“We believe the final CPP rule will be litigated”, Fitch says.

“We will work closely with the Public Utilities Commission to draft our final plan. Actually, I’ve been told that we are on our way to compliance already with the plan if we continue what we are doing in regard to renewable standards and efficiency in government buildings”. The state’s attorney general, Jack Conway, a Democrat who is running for governor, has vowed to fight it in court. NERA Economic Consulting estimates that the Clean Power Plan will cost $366 billion and bring double-digit electricity-rate increases to 43 states. While the court didn’t reject the rule outright, it remanded the matter to a lower court for rehearing on the financial impact to determine next steps.

West Virginia is leading the lawsuit, filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, along with Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Wisconsin and Wyoming. It is estimated that as many as 25 states could eventually join the suit.

States don’t have to comply with the rule until 2022, two years later than a proposal last year had initially called for, which some legal experts say could hinder the states’ efforts to get a stay given the longer lead time.