Clean Power Plan

Obama's Carbon Rationing Clean Power Plan Stayed by Supreme Court

Greenhouse gas regulations will now be an even bigger issue in the U.S. presidential campaign

|

CPP
climateinteractive

By 5 to 4 vote, the U.S. Supreme Court has stayed the implmentation of the EPA's Clean Power Plan, the Obama administration's biggest effort to address man-made climate change. Under the CPP, electric utilities would be required to cut by 2030 their emissions of carbon dioxide by 30 percent below their 2005 levels. Under the CPP, each state is supposed to submit its plan for achieving the reductions by 2018.

In response, 27 states and a number of leading energy production companies filed lawsuits in opposition to the EPA's regulations. If the Supreme Court ultimately rules against the CPP, that would gut the Obama administration's chief policy aimed at meeting the U.S. commitments made under the new Paris Climate Agreement in December.

"Make no mistake – this is a great victory for West Virginia," West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey said in a statement.

White House press secretary Josh Earnest asserted:

"The Clean Power Plan is based on a strong legal and technical foundation, gives states the time and flexibility they need to develop tailored, cost-effective plans to reduce their emissions, and will deliver better air quality, improved public health, clean energy investment and jobs across the country, and major progress in our efforts to confront the risks posed by climate change. We remain confident that we will prevail on the merits."

Naturally, environmental activist groups insist that the courts will uphold the CPP. 

From the Natural Resources Defense Council's Daniel Doniger:

"We are confident the courts will ultimately uphold the Clean Power Plan on its merits. The electricity sector has embarked on an unstoppable shift from its high-pollution, dirty-fueled past to a safer, cleaner-powered future, and the stay cannot reverse that trend. Nor can it dampen the overwhelming public support for action on climate change and clean energy.

"Smart industry, financial, and governmental leaders will not count the Clean Power Plan out, and will keep moving to incorporate strategies and public policies leading toward a clean energy economy."

From the World Resources Institute's Sam Adams:

"The Supreme Court's highly unusual action flies in the face of common sense. Experts agree that the Clean Power Plan is on solid legal ground and will prevail based on the merits. We expect this ruling to be only a temporary 'time out' as the plan heads to full implementation. …

With the consequences of climate change becoming clearer by the day, America must not drag its feet. We are very confident that the courts will ultimately agree with the abundant evidence of the benefits of a clean energy economy."

This issue will now also figure prominently in the U.S. presidential campaign. Stay tuned.

NEXT: Clinton Loses Young Women by More Than 60 Points in New Hampshire

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. This is a great victory for everyone who didn’t want to see their electricity rates double. (Sorry, you environmental state suckers, but we are paying 10.6c/Kwh here, all hail to the glory of coal.)

    1. These are the same folks that think “the US should be more like Europe” with its 40 c/kWh electricity.

      This is what they actually want, which really isn’t surprising. After all, what difference does the price of retail electricity make if one lives in Mom’s basement?

      1. No they don’t want that. They sit around romanticizing about Europe as this magical place where everything is free and everyone is happy. But they’ve never been there. And they don’t want to go, because reality is scary.

        1. or they only vacationed there once and only saw the tourist spots and decided it was Disneyland. Live and work anywhere for a while and you will soon learn that all that is golden is not gold

        2. I lived in Europe for three years in the late 80’s. It was actually a pretty good place to live, if you don’t mind high taxes and aren’t of a libertarian mindset. But what everyone seemed to miss at that time when comparing Europe to the U.S. was that there was very little of the poor, unmotivated underclass that has been the norm in the US for decades. So the high taxes went mostly to uses that were available to most everyone: good roads, great public transportation, health care, education, etc. Now that many of the European countries have a sizable underclass it’s a different story, and we can see the backlash that is occurring.

          1. Plus, the US was footing the bill for much of their military spending for decades, which frees up lots of money for other stuff.

  2. abundant evidence of the benefits of a clean energy economy.

    Feels = evidence now?

    1. Especially with oil and natural gas prices now subject to a de facto cap for the next few years, at least. A cap that is getting lower over time. Its hard to see how driving the economy to more expensive sources of energy is a benefit.

      1. “Its hard to see how driving the economy to more expensive sources of energy is a benefit.”

        It’s easy to see if one shares the objectives of the environmentalists. You seem to think that “the benefits of a clean energy economy” should include a robust economy and rising standards of living. Environmentalists want a pristine atmospheric CO2 content, which can only be attained by a lethargic economy and declining standards of living. That’s one of the reasons why socialism is so appealing to them.

    2. With the consequences of climate change becoming clearer by the day,

      The confirmation bias is strong with this one.

  3. I’m sure it happens, but I can’t recall SCOTUS ever actually staying a law pending review. This is a pretty major kick in the ‘nads for the Administration.

    1. They rebuked the EPA before on the same type of bullshit. The EPA went “We got X months of enforcement because there was no stay – we won anyway”. So this time it’s “Stop right now”

      1. Yeah, some of the guys over at Volokh Conspiracy were saying this very well could be a case of the EPA running their mouths last time about how they ended up with de facto enforcement. It’s actually encouraging to see. After all, the whole fucking point of injunctive relief is to prevent immediate harm from happening as the controversy is resolved.

  4. It was Jack who linked an article which he claimed showed Germany ‘using clever techniques’ to address the lack of reliable energy from their ‘renewable’ sources (hint; No. Germany is foggy a good bit of the time).
    Typically, he didn’t bother to read it; they plan on users ‘adapting to supply’; IOWs, power will be rationed.
    In another article I read recently, one of the car makers was planning on a new factory in So. Germany, but now is planning on building elsewhere so they are relatively certain of the electrical supply.
    For all the whining, the US is still doing quite a bit of manufacturing, but Obo’s plan is a good way to make sure those jobs go elsewhere.

    1. Thankfully, here in enlightened California we are rushing headlong into making energy costs as expensive as possible. How long have we had that “special” gasoline that costs almost a buck more a gallon? They got people to go along with that and the next big thing will be to convert large portions of our electrical generation to “sustainable” sources. They are relentless.

    2. German solar power is a boondoggle of epic proportions. It’s a northern latitude country with poor solar flux. Wind power makes a little more sense in that regard, but even there the implementation and basic geography makes it expensive.

      On the other hand, I’d rather have the Germans crippling their economy with internal boondoggles than starting another World War. So, I guess it’s still a Win.

      1. All of a sudden the juxtaposition of renewable power and old school nazism has me seeing a power plant driven by rapefugees on treadmills until they are no longer suited to it when they become fuel for the oven-powered plant.

        I don’t know where that thought came from, I blame Irish.

        1. Ah, so that’s Merkel’s secret plan. It all makes sense now.

      2. Well, they are agitating through their banks as they demand for payment of loans.

    3. Or they could do what German company Volkswagen did and fudge their emission numbers.

  5. We were one liberal SCOTUS nominee away from allowing the executive to bypass congress on things of such national importance.

    1. After the craven deference shown to the executive in numerous cases by the current court, I’m rather surprised by this, I have to say.

      I would say we are probably four SCOTUS nominees away from having a court that will reliably block the executive from bypassing Congress.

      1. Only four? Are there that many gonad wielding judges to pick from?

        1. Justices do not have to have been judges – or even lawyers.

          1. Good point. I guess it really comes down to whether a given president would appoint four such persons. Which brings us back to Trump. He may be the only trend bucking, tradition avoiding asshole to choose from. But I would not trust him to do the right thing in this regard (or any regard).

            1. It’s not so much trusting Trump to do the right thing, as much as it is, being confident everyone else will do the wrong thing.

        2. Only four?

          Assuming they replace the left wing of the court, that’s probably enough. Big assumption, I know.

  6. “This issue will now also figure prominently in the U.S. presidential campaign. Stay tuned.”

    About time.

    1. I hope so. Trump is just the sort of personality to call bullshit. Hopefully he will be well advised.

      1. He has pretty much already said so when he said climate change is a hoax perpetrated by China. But he should be asked directly, as should all the candidates. The SC ruling is the perfect entry to the whole topic, because actions are being taken to address climate change.

        1. Yes, Jack, and each one should be asked how drastic the problem is, with special emphasis on the (universally failed) predictions.
          Sorta like your continuing bullshit regarding, oh, fracking. Tell us again how it causes earthquakes that no one can feel; that’s always good for a laugh.
          Or launch into full fucking ignoramus mode and tell us when the rapture is to happen!

        2. “..because actions are being taken to address climate change..”

          What you mean the Administration is doing everything in it’s power to encourage a large scale build out of nuclear power? Oh wait never mind.

          You didn’t say that “effective actions are being taken to address climate change..”, So my bad.

          1. Indeed your bad. Guess you missed Obama’s proposed budget.

            “This year’s budget includes a multi-agency proposal to double federal spending on clean-energy research and development, from $6.4 billion in 2016 to $12.8 billion in 2021. The fiscal 2017 budget includes $7.7 billion towards this goal. Around 80% of that money would be funnelled through the DOE, although 12 agencies are included in the effort.

            The DOE contribution to the initiative includes $880 million for research on vehicles and renewable fuels, $804 million for nuclear-energy programmes and $564 million for a range of fossil-energy research, including technologies to capture and sequester carbon dioxide.”

            But why keep up with facts when you can live in a libertarian meme, eh?

            1. The cheapest and easiest way top sequester carbon dioxide is to plant trees and make more products out of wood.

            2. “Indeed your bad. Guess you missed Obama’s proposed budget.

              “This year’s budget includes a multi-agency proposal to double federal spending on clean-energy research and development, from $6.4 billion in 2016 to $12.8 billion in 2021. The fiscal 2017 budget includes $7.7 billion towards this goal. Around 80% of that money would be funnelled through the DOE, although 12 agencies are included in the effort.
              The DOE contribution to the initiative includes $880 million for research on vehicles and renewable fuels, $804 million for nuclear-energy programmes and $564 million for a range of fossil-energy research, including technologies to capture and sequester carbon dioxide.”

              And Jack falls for Obo propaganda once more!
              Hey, Jack, you never get a ‘good’, just a ‘stupid’.

        3. I don’t know if China started it but it is a laughable thing this climate change. And knaves, fools and buffoons are bowing before Gaia and politicians begging to increase their cost of living to prevent this ‘change’ from happening. As if our actions are going to have any real or measurable impact especially considering the ‘models’ used and data manipulation have brought the whole Nouveau-Age movement into question.

          Thank the Lord God gave us a skeptical eye and mind.

    2. No, we really don’t want this as a campaign issue. The for-the-children voters are easily led, and easily deluded into thinking that it won’t really do any harm.

      1. “The for-the-children voters are easily led, and easily deluded into thinking that it won’t really do any harm.”

        As exemplified by Jack; simple-minded and yes, easily led.

  7. I would agree with the experts, there’s no damned way that the courts can actually strike this down after all the similar moves they’ve let the EPA get away with. It’s up to Americans who buy energy to stop voting environmentalist whackjobs into office, but I’m cynical that most people will understand that until after they kill petrofuels and actually feel the costs in their wallets.

    1. The voters don’t have a choice. They have to buy the package deal. Political parties are like your cable company. You have to buy all the shit you don’t want to get the few channels you do.

      You want gay marriage and abortions? You have to buy higher taxes and environmental suicide along with it.

      Or you can vote GOP. Then you don’t have to buy higher taxes and environmental suicide, but you don’t get the gay channel and you get 10 war channels instead.

      1. They have to buy the package deal.

        ^This.

        But it should be noted that, despite the rhetoric of one of them, that both parties are all for higher taxes.

        1. One would have to think, Tonio, based on reality that the 2 parties are colluding to fuck over us peasants.

    2. Yes they can,if the S.C, can decide on a whim that growing wheat for your own use can be stopped by the Feds anything is possible.

      1. And,a few years later the same assholes were wanting people to plant ‘victory gardens’.

  8. Meeting the goals set by this plan would, at best, reduce the temperature rise by like .001 degrees. Whether or not you believe in global warming, it is very clear by all measures that every plan on the table would reduce carbon emissions by negligible amounts in the long term. It’s all just to save face.

    1. 1) It has always been about the feels, not about the facts.

      2) You don’t really believe they’ll stop there, do you? Once they start with the energy rationing, it will only snowball.

  9. “Greenhouse gas regulations will now be an even bigger issue in the U.S. presidential campaign”

    I’d like to think this election will be about issues rather than personalities, but I’m not getting my hopes up.

    1. (nodding)
      (sighs)

  10. Experts agree that the Clean Power Plan is on solid legal ground……………..

    The Supreme Court justices ARE the experts on the law. And they (as a group) do NOT agree.

  11. About the picture at the top:

    What is it with the Obama administration and cartoons that look like they were drawn by 3rd graders (remember “Life of Julia” during the 2012 campaign)? I guess they know their audience.

  12. lighten up morrisey

  13. If you are one that believes the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what is lawful and constitutional, then you have believed a lie and a myth that Jefferson warned about.

    The States still retain their rights to this day to defy the federal judiciary, which has become an oligarchy. We just need strong statesmen as governors and legislatures to make that stand! The people will get behind those that will take the stand, but we must first seek out those willing to put all they are on the line for the sake of freedom, not necessarily a political future.

    “Perhaps even more disturbing is that the voters who feel strongest about overriding the federal courts ? Republicans and conservatives – are those who traditionally have been the most supportive of the Constitution and separation of powers,” reports Rasmussen. “During the Obama years, however, these voters have become increasingly suspicious and even hostile toward the federal government.”
    In writing to William Jarvis, Jefferson said, “You seem . . . to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”

    Freedom outpost

    1. The germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal Judiciary; an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow) working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped.”

    2. Yeah, yeah, yeah, but in the real world, what the Supreme Court says is the final arbiter.

  14. And this is a great example of why voting for a Republican president is preferable to voting for a Democrat or not voting.

    Economic liberty (and gun ownership and free speech) exists in this country only by a single supreme court vote.

  15. “The Clean Power Plan is based on a strong legal and technical foundation…”.

    Sure. That’s why it relies on secret science. Secret science that EPA, NOAA and NASA all refuse to disclose in defiance of congress and the courts. They act like it is proprietary information of theirs or their employees or conatrctors, even though it was paid for with taxpayer money.

    Its just a sleazy down-and-dirty “shoot-the-moon” power grab.

  16. Deport all the criminal aliens. That would result in a 5% reduction in energy use – which has to be a big chunk of Obozo’s goal.

  17. The technology is so developed that we can watch videos, live streaming, TV serials and any of our missed programs within our mobiles and PCs. Showbox
    All we need is a mobile or PC with a very good internet connection. There are many applications by which we can enjoy videos, our missed programs, live streaming etc.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.