Posted on 02/11/2016 5:30:11 AM PST by Kaslin
The Environmental Protection Agency's "Clean Power Plan," an enormous regulatory monster unilaterally cooked up by federal bureaucrats and attempted to be foisted on states, utility companies and consumers, was dealt a huge blow at the Supreme Court this week when the regulations were put on hold pending the numerous legal challenges that have been percolating through the court system.
The importance of this stay cannot be overstated. In the past, some EPA regulations that have been overturned in the court system were not put on hold and their damage was already done while other states and groups were challenging their legality. In Michigan v. EPA, for example, the Supreme Court overturned onerous EPA MATS regulations on power plants, but the rules were not suspended while the legal challenges were made. In that case, the MATS regulations were issued in 2012 and the Supreme Court didn't overturn them until 2015 - and by that time the damage had already been done. Those regulations cost consumers almost $10 billion per year, and many power plants were shuttered in the years between when the EPA issued the rule and the Supreme Court overturned them. Since the regulations were in place for so long, the EPA already won by the time they were struck down: most power plants and utilities are now in compliance with the rules. And the specter of these MATS regulations will haunt businesses for years: what utility would open a new plant that wasn't in compliance with a rule that no longer exists if they're scared the EPA might try again? Indeed - the EPA has already re-issued the MATS regulations, claiming to now be in compliance with the Supreme Court ruling against them.
The Clean Power Plan was supposed to be a big win for environmentalists and the Obama Administration. They sold it as "flexible" - framing it as though states could set their own roadmaps in order to meet the requirements of the Clean Power Plan. It might have been the only way with which the EPA could sell the legality of its unilateral action to the courts, but it also might have backfired. Twenty-seven states filed lawsuits challenging the Clean Power Plan as an onerous overreach, and now the EPA must wait as those states get to make their case to the courts without having to comply with the Plan in the meantime.
If the Supreme Court hadn't put a hold on the Clean Power Plan, as they failed to do with the MATS regulations, we would already begin to see its effects. Estimates have shown that the Clean Power Plan will cost tens of billions of dollars over the next couple of decades, and that utility bills will be higher nationwide. [Link: http://watchdog.org/246137/clean-power-plan-6/] The utility industry estimates that the regulation will cost $292 billion in total by 2030 and up to 20% hikes on their utility bills.
This is why it was so important that so many states filed lawsuits on the Clean Power Plan while refusing to comply with the "optional" EPA mandate that the states themselves come up with their own compliance plans. [Link: http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/09/how_ohio_can_fight_the_epas_hi.html#incart_2box_opinion_index.ssf] If there were fewer states and organizations willing to stand up to the EPA, or there were more states in compliance with the "state option" plans, the Supreme Court might have looked at the landscape and thought that these regulations were easy to comply with and that it would be acceptable for the regulations to be in place while the challenges make their way through the court system.
The biggest challenges to the Clean Power Plan are currently on track to be considered by the Supreme Court next year. That time is incredibly valuable to the states that will be most impacted by the Clean Power Plan [Link: http://www.grandforksherald.com/opinion/op-ed-columns/3877069-column-clean-power-plan-will-hit-north-dakota-hard – states like North Dakota, Ohio, and other major energy producers. The Obama EPA would have already have won if states would have been expected to be in compliance with this unilateral regulation until the courts had the opportunity to rule.
The victory for the states at the Supreme Court against the EPA's Clean Power Plan isn't going to be the final blow in this battle. But it at least means that the EPA hasn't already won.
5 to 4.
Very close call.
The main reason to vote for Cruz.
A conservative Supreme Court is the main issue.
Why is it that every Scheme cooked up by the leftist is always deceptively misnamed, ends up making the cost of everything exponentially higher in cost, and punishes the consumers. I think they’re all just ways to suck more money out of taxpayers pockets and redistribute the wealth to the politicans that are in on it using crafty thieving accounting methods.
Why is it that every scheme cooked up by the leftists are always deceptively misnamed, ends up making the cost of everything exponentially higher in cost, and punishes the consumers. I think they’re all just ways to suck more money out of taxpayers pockets and redistribute the wealth to the politicans that are in on it using crafty thieving accounting methods.
I learned from a source very close that the EPA received more comments on this regulation than any in previous history. The EPA was not able to handle the surge and was forced to call in the contractors to work on the immense number of comments. Just cataloging the comments was a problem beyond the EPA’s capability. the task was tremendous.
The contractors worked three months sorting it all out and were forced to cease work on what they were doing to digest the surge.
Cruz would be a good appointment to the court.
A huge win for us here in northern Michigan. I am still celebrating.
I’m surprised they bothered to do anything with the comments other than delete them.
Stick it quota boy
"Be on your guard against false prophets, men who come to you in sheep's clothing, but are ravenous wolves within.
"You will know them by the fruit they yield.
"Can grapes be plucked from briers, or figs from thistles?
"So, indeed, any sound tree will bear good fruit, while any tree that is withered will bear fruit that is worthless; that worthless fruit should come from a sound tree, or good fruit from a withered tree, is impossible.
"Any tree which does not bear good fruit is cut down, and thrown into the fire.
"I say therefore, it is by their fruit that you will know them."
We've always been at war with Eastasia
America has 350 years worth of recoverable coal.
A real “Clean Power Plan” would work to invent a clean burning method.
CO2 sequestration isn’t working and we’re spending millions on wind mills that chop up birds and bats.
Is there no presidential candidate who will recognize the obvious ?
Of course the Libs champion the court when they agree with a ruling and condemn the court when they disagree with a ruling. What a basis for a law abiding country!
I think there are two factors: political correctness, and federal control of school curriculum. They contrive to game the language and shallow thinkers don’t dig deep.
The results are as you stated.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.