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.
"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.
The plan was designed to lower carbon emissions from U.S. power
plants by 2030 to 32 percent below 2005 levels. It is the main tool
for the United States to meet the emissions reduction target it
pledged at U.N. climate talks in Paris in December.
A senior administration official told reporters on Tuesday night
that despite the court's "procedural decision," the United States
can deliver those commitments and take "new and additional steps" to
lead internationally on climate change.
The Supreme Court's action casts doubt on the long-term future of
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's rule because it increases
the chances that the conservative-leaning Supreme Court would take
the case after a lower court issues a decision on the legality of
the regulations and ultimately would strike it down.
As recently as June, the high court ruled 5-4 against the Obama
administration over its efforts to regulate mercury and other toxic
air pollutants.
The states, led by coal producer West Virginia and oil producer
Texas, and several major business groups in October launched the
legal effort seeking to block the Obama administration's plan. The
states said the emissions curbs would have a devastating impact on
their economies.
West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey described the
Supreme Court action on Tuesday as a "historic and unprecedented
victory" over the EPA.
Tom Donahue, chief executive officer of the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce, said the high court stay "will ensure that America will
not be forced to make costly and irreversible implementation
decisions based upon an unprecedented regulation until judicial
review is complete."
For Obama, executing his domestic and international climate change
strategy would be a key legacy accomplishment as he nears the end of
his time in office in January 2017.
House of Representatives Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said, "The
Supreme Court’s deeply misguided decision to stay the implementation
of the Clean Power Plan will enable those states that deny climate
science to slow progress in reducing the carbon pollution that
threatens the health of all Americans."
House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy welcomed the Supreme Court's
move, saying it "has now stopped this illegitimate abuse of power
after 27 states revolted against the president’s anti-energy
agenda."
[to top of second column] |
The court action also means that, with Obama leaving office in
January 2017, the next president will have a say on whether to
continue defending the regulation.
Before that, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit, which denied a similar stay request last month, will hear
oral arguments in the case on June 2 and decide whether the
regulations are lawful.
"This is certainly a surprise and it suggests the court has serious
concerns" about the regulation, said Jonathan Adler, a professor at
Case Western Reserve School of Law.
DIVIDED COURT
The brief order from the justices said that the regulations would be
on hold until the legal challenge is completed. The court's five
conservatives all voted to block the rule. The order noted that the
four liberals would have denied the application.
Under the EPA rule, each state must submit a plan to comply with its
emission-reduction target by September 2016 but can also request a
two-year extension.
The challengers contended that the Obama administration exceeded its
authority under the Clean Air Act, the key law that addresses air
pollution. More than a dozen other states and the National League of
Cities, which represents more than 19,000 U.S. cities, filed court
papers backing the rule.
Jeff Holmstead, a lawyer for coal-powered utilities that challenged
the rule, said the court has never before blocked an EPA rule. "To
say it's unusual is a bit of an understatement," Holmstead added.
Sean Donahue, a lawyer for environmental groups that support the
law, said the court action was "surprising and disappointing." He
added that "we remain very confident in the legal and factual
foundations for EPA's rule."
Sam Adams, U.S. climate director for the World Resources Institute,
said fighting to uphold the rule is important to ensure the Paris
agreement stays intact.
"The benefits of the Clean Power Plan are definitely worth fighting
for, not only for the United States but the high expectations it
hopes to set internationally," he said.
(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley and Valerie Volcovici; Editing by Will
Dunham and Lisa Shumaker)
[© 2016 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.]
Copyright 2016 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. |