Last week the U.S. Supreme Court put a hold on federal regulations to curb carbon dioxide emissions mainly from coal-fired power plants, which has been a focal point of President Obama’s efforts to address climate change.
The court voted to stay the Clean Power Plan, which was issued last summer by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to cut carbon pollution from the nation’s power plants 30 percent from 2005 levels by 2030.
According to the New York Times: “The 5-to-4 vote, with the court’s four liberal members dissenting, was unprecedented — the Supreme Court had never before granted a request to halt a regulation before review by a federal appeals court.”
The White House stated: “We remain confident that we will prevail on the merits. Even while the litigation proceeds, EPA has indicated it will work with states that choose to continue plan development and will prepare the tools those states will need. At the same time, the Administration will continue to take aggressive steps to make forward progress to reduce carbon emissions.”
How will this impact what states and businesses are doing to reduce carbon emissions, and what is the jurisdiction of the EPA in the near term?
The Clean Power Plan’s timelines required states to submit their state implementation plan (SIP) by September 2016 for review and approval by the EPA. If a draft SIP is submitted, then the state could request an extension until September 2018 to submit a final. The one thing that is not in question is that the stay, and the several years it will take to litigate this issue, will require these dates to be delayed.
However, despite the stay, some states are staying the course and will move ahead with reduction plans. As one example, Colorado has stated its health and environmental officials will continue working toward compliance with the controversial Clean Power Plan—even though Colorado was one of the twenty-nine states that requested the stay. With the ultimate decisions resting with the lower courts, each state will determine what the Supreme Court’s decision means for them.
Coal remains a large and major component of the energy mix for the United States. In 2014, coal energy comprised 39% of the total U.S. consumption, the largest percentage of total energy sources. This varies by state; in Colorado 60% of its energy was derived from coal, whereas in Kentucky, coal fueled 92% of Kentucky’s net electricity generation in 2014.
Many companies such as Duke Energy and TVA are following what states like Colorado are doing by continuing on their path of reducing emissions. The ruling is not seen to slow Duke’s move from coal to natural gas, or TVA’s plans to close more TVA coal plants. In a recent Chattanooga Times Free Press article, TVA President Bill Johnson states: “The stay of the Clean Power Plan will not affect our actions in any way. For us, we’re probably as well positioned as anyone in the country to comply (with the EPA regulations) so I don’t think this will change any of our actions or decision making. It really wasn’t driving our decisions in the first place.” By 2020, TVA is planning to cut its carbon emissions by at least 40 percent below 2005 levels.
Another factor to consider is the vacant Supreme Court seat with Justice Scalia’s passing over the weekend. What will the vacant seat mean for this “temporary hold”? What will the vacancy mean for the future of the Clean Power Plan? We do not see a high likelihood this will be resolved in the near term especially considering we are in an election year. This means it is the discretion of individual states and businesses to continue with their Clean Power Plan actions, navigate off the course slightly or abandon them all together.
We foresee that some states and institutions will stay the course for a few reasons. One, it is good policy and environmental stewardship. Two, many have already committed resources and even made strides in meeting requirements. And, lastly, if the regulations are ultimately upheld, they would only have to begin efforts all over again, often in a rush that can make such efforts problematic and expensive.
As stated by Bob Perciasepe, ex-EPA deputy administrator and now-head of the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions: “Whether or not the Court ultimately upholds this particular rule, the need to cut carbon emissions will remain, and states need to figure out the most cost-effective ways to do that.” This is not to say that there will some states, especially those that have resisted the requirements, won’t take this as an opportunity to halt or slow their plans. One thing is for sure, this will be interesting to monitor in the coming months and into 2017.
UPDATE:
Check out E & E’s Power Plan Hub. It’s interactive map shows which states are continuing with their Clean Power Plan activities, which are assessing, suspending and exempt. So far, 20 are moving ahead and 18 are suspending.
