Florida Joins Lawsuit Against Power Plant Rule

States and industry groups dependent on fossil fuels are lining up to file court challenges to President Obama’s Clean Power Plan, which aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Nationally, the plan for the first time puts national limits on carbon pollution, cutting US carbon pollution from energy producers by 870 million tons, or 32% below 2005 levels, in 2030.

States say the EPA is moving beyond its regulatory jurisdiction and powers. To reach that goal, each state has a unique target that it can achieve by cleaning or shuttering coal-fired power plants, building renewable energy systems, and investing in energy efficiency.

The American Lung Association in Montana announced shortly after their disappointment in Attorney General Fox’s decision to join the lawsuit and that they have begun steps to formally intervene to legally defend the clean power plan from attempts to block it.

“In Iowa, we’re particularly concerned about what climate change can do to agriculture”, Miller said. He noted it took a federal judge about a month to delay an EPA water regulation earlier this month, and said that could be a “guidepost” for how long litigation might take.

“Today’s publication starts the effective compliance period”. “We will be engaging the stakeholders in the next several weeks on the issues that are open for comment”.

The Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) released a report on October 16 that was an updated Analysis of the Impacts of the Clean Power Plan.

“It’s a costly power plan that will cost tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs in the state, and we’ll see upwards of close to 20 percent potential increases for ratepayers in the state”, Walker said.

After 24 states and a coal mining company were the first out the gate with lawsuits Friday morning, more and more challenges rolled into the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

Scientific American reported that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will challenge the EPA rules next week, hosting votes that are “calculated to embarrass” the White House before climate talks in Paris.

EPA already regulates other power-plant pollutants under a different section of the Clean Air Act, and the opponents claim the law prohibits “double regulation”. This unlawful rule will have serious and significant consequences.

This is the second major legal effort against CPP in the a year ago.

“While Arkansas’ utilities, state agencies and environmental groups are already working to reduce carbon pollution, Attorney General Rutledge is engaged in yet another attack on clean air protections”, Hooks said. According to the Clean Air Act, lawsuits can only be filed within 60 days after a rule is published. In North Carolina, for example, the environmental agency controlled by the Republican governor joined the opposition without the participation of the state’s Democratic attorney general. They insisted the federal government does have the legal authority to rein in power plant emissions, and they note the U.S. Supreme Court has historically ruled in the EPA’s favor on carbon-related regulations.

The 15 opposing states, led by West Virginia and mainly representing coal-heavy economies, are expected to argue that the EPA does not have the authority to regulate carbon emissions from power plants under this statute.

But well before next September when Wisconsin and other states would have to file an implementation plan or request a two-year extension, the 24-state lawsuit hopes to stop the rule. A legal victory against the Clean Power Plan, unless prompt, may prove Pyrrhic.

The Texas Public Policy Foundation, a free market think tank, said a change of this nature should be approved by Congress, not just implemented by Administration executive action.