14 August 19
wenty-nine
states and cities sued the Trump administration Tuesday to stop it from
weakening the Obama-era Clean Power Plan, which was the first
regulation to set nation-wide ceilings on greenhouse gas emissions from
power plants, The New York Times reported.
The administration's replacement, the Affordable Clean Energy Rule,
would allow states to decide whether or not to limit emissions. It
would ultimately reduce climate-warming emissions by less than half of
what is needed to keep global temperatures from rising more than two
degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, according to figures cited
by HuffPost.
"Without significant course correction, we are
careening towards a climate disaster," New York Attorney General Letitia
James said in a statement reported by HuffPost. "Rather than staying
the course with policies aimed at fixing the problem and protecting
people's health, safety, and the environment, the Trump Administration
repealed the Clean Power Plan and replaced it with this 'Dirty Power'
rule."
At stake in the lawsuit is how much authority the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
has to limit carbon pollution under the Clean Air Act. The 22 states
and six cities (plus Washington, DC) behind the suit argue that the
replacement plan, finalized in June, does not use the "best system of
emissions reduction," as the act requires. While the Clean Power Plan
encouraged utilities to switch to cleaner energy sources, put a price on
carbon or use carbon capture technologies, the Trump plan only focuses
on improving efficiency at individual plants, The New York Times
explained.
"The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to utilize the
best system of emissions reduction that it can find. This rule does the
opposite," California Attorney General Xavier Becerra told The New York
Times.
But EPA administrator Andrew Wheeler
argued that the Clean Power Plan overstepped the federal government's
authority. That was also the argument made by the coalition of
Republican-led states and industry groups that sued to stop the
Obama-era plan in 2015. In 2016, the Supreme Court blocked the roll-out
of the plan until its legal merits could be decided. However, while the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit heard oral
arguments in the fall of 2016, it had not issued a final ruling by the
time President Donald Trump was elected, according to The Washington Post.
The Trump administration initially requested time to
consider the plan, and then announced its intention to repeal it in
2017. If the current lawsuit reaches the Supreme Court, therefore, it
could be the catalyst for determining how much authority the EPA has to
fight the climate crisis going forward.
"From a public policy perspective, we should hope that
this case goes to the Supreme Court — so that everyone who cares about
climate change will know the limits of what EPA can do under current law
to reduce industrial CO2 emissions," Jeff Holmstead, who led the EPA's
air and radiation office under President George W. Bush and is now a
partner at Bracewell, told The Washington Post.
But New York University environmental law expert
professor Richard L. Revesz warned a Supreme Court ruling in favor of
the Trump administration could have serious consequences.
"It would have a devastating effect on the ability of
future administrations to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air
Act," he told The New York Times.
The states behind the current suit are New York,
California, Massachusetts, Colorado, Wisconsin, North Carolina,
Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan,
Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
Vermont, Virginia, Washington and the District of Columbia. The cities
are Boulder, Colorado, Los Angeles, New York City, Chicago, South Miami
and Philadelphia. They filed the suit in the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia.
No comments:
Post a Comment