The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday delivered a major blow to President Barack Obama by putting on hold federal regulations to curb carbon dioxide emissions mainly from coal-fired power plants, the centerpiece of his administration's strategy to combat climate change.
The court voted 5-4 along ideological lines to grant a request by 27 states and various companies and business groups to block the administration's Clean Power Plan, which also mandates a shift to renewable energy away from fossil fuels.
The highly unusual move by the justices means the regulations will not be in effect while a court battle continues over their legality.
The White House on Tuesday night said it disagrees with the court decision but said it expects the rule will survive the legal challenge.Read the whole article by clicking here.
"We remain confident that we will prevail on the merits," the White House said, adding that the Environmental Protection Agency will continue to work with states that want to cooperate and that it will continue to take "aggressive steps" to reduce carbon emissions.
From the North America Shale Blog:
On January 26, 2016, 29 states and state agencies, including Oklahoma, Texas, West Virginia, Ohio, Colorado, and Mississippi (the “29 States”), submitted an application (the “29 States Application”) to the United States Supreme Court seeking an immediate stay of the October 23, 2015, final rule of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) titled “Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units” (the “Final Rule”).
The move came in response to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ January 21, 2016, ruling denying an immediate stay of the Final Rule, pending the court’s decision on various parties’ petitions for a review of the legality of the Final Rule.
Due to the D.C. Circuit’s refusal to enter a stay of the Final Rule, the 29 States assert Supreme Court intervention is proper, because “[t]here is: ‘(1) a reasonable probability that four Justices will consider the issue sufficiently meritorious to grant certiorari; (2) a fair prospect that a majority of the Court w[ould] vote to reverse [a] judgment below [upholding the Power Plan]; and (3) a likelihood that irreparable harm will result from the denial of a stay.’” Id. at 13 (citations omitted).Click here to read more.
Connect with us on Facebook and Twitter!