Democratic states challenging the Trump Administration’s redo of the Obama CO2 emissions regulations should be careful what they sue for.
Their lawsuit could backfire and undermine the Environmental Protection Agency’s power to regulate carbon emissions.
Twenty-two Democratic state Attorneys General and seven cities this week asked the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to vacate the Trump EPA’s CO2 emission rules for coal plants.
The Clean Air Act directs the EPA to implement the “best system of emission reduction” for pollutants, which the agency has traditionally applied to individual power plants.
The Obama EPA went further and required states to re-engineer their electric grids by replacing all coal and eventually natural gas with wind and solar.
The Supreme Court in 2016 stopped the Obama power grab from being implemented as it likely exceeded the EPA’s legal authority and unconstitutionally commandeered the states.
The result is that federal CO2 emission standards for power plants have been nonexistent.
Last month the Trump EPA issued new regulations requiring states to implement the “best system of emission reduction” by making on-site efficiency improvements at coal plants. The rule gives states flexibility and won’t force them to prematurely close plants.
Yet Democratic states complain in announcing their lawsuit that the “EPA’s rule rolls-back [the Obama] limits and will have virtually no impact on these emissions prolonging the nation’s reliance on polluting, expensive coal power plants and obstructing the progress of states toward clean, renewable, and affordable electricity generation.”
This is false in every respect.
The Trump rule will cover 600 coal-fired plants and cut emissions to 34% below 2005 levels—similar to what the Obama Clean Power Plan purported to achieve.
As the Trump rule notes, “updated analysis shows the [Clean Power Plan] would have no effect on future CO2 emissions” due to “current market trends.”
One of Hillary Clinton’s mistakes in the 2016 presidential race was her stance on climate change, which would have seen a continuation of Obama’s regulatory fiat. So have 2020 Democratic candidates learned from the past?
Read more at Wall Street Journal
Litigation Stupidity now that the Blue Sates cant sue the gun makers their going after some high pockets types to rake in the ill gotten gains the Vulture the Shark and the Donkey are partners in crime
Basically, the Obama Clean Power Plan “stacked the deck” where power generators were required to meet BACT standards, which in “air rules” parlance meant that coal was effectively eliminated. As I appreciate them, in effect, the Trump Administration revisions will allow the free markets to continue to advance technology and determine best practices needed. Therefore, natural gas will continue to replace coal while not retiring more modern plants prematurely. This gives power generators the opportunity to make the best choices to modernize & stabilize the grid & insures that ratepayers don’t get HAMMERED in the process. Let’s not forget two important things. Americans (on average) are paying some of the lowest electricity prices while the U.S has it’s LOWEST CO2 emissions totals in the past 25 years. We have BLOWN AWAY every other industrialized nation if you consider the facts. Simply, if the free market works, then don’t FIX it…
Actually I believe I misspoke on my comment. The power industry would have been forced under the Obama plan to the higher MACT (Maximum Achievable Control Standards). That would have forced closure of EVERY coal plant & then, we’d have to replace 30% of our electric generating capability. For reference, renewables (including hydroelectric) currently supply 10% of U.S power generation. getting the picture here?