Clean Power Plan Opposition Grows

A coalition of 24 states and a power company are suing to stop the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan (CPP), calling it an unlawful federal bid to control state power grids.

As part of the lawsuit, the states seek to place a hold on the Clean Power Plan’s deadlines for meeting its carbon emission goals, which supporters have described as necessary to improve air quality but foes have criticized as arbitrary and unrealistically strict.

In addition to the lawsuit by the states, pro-business groups have also joined the fight against the Clean power Plan that mandates a massive reduction in carbon emissions in the next 15 years, arguing that it will jack up energy costs and slash jobs without making a dent in greenhouse gases.

U.S. Chamber of Commerce and 14 other business groups filed a lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency. Their lawsuit:

  • Claims the EPA has overstepped its authority by attempting a takeover of state power plants.
  • Seeks a hold on the rule’s implementation pending the legal challenge.
  • Parallels the lawsuit filed same day by 24 states.

The Rule requires a fundamental restructuring of the power sector, compelling States, utilities and suppliers to adopt EPA’s preferred sources of power and fuel and to redesign their electricity infrastructure in the process.

A preliminary analysis of the Clean Power Plan issued in October, 2014 by the NERA economic consulting calculated that the CPP could boost retail electricity prices 12 percent to 17 percent.

The Clean Power Plan would effectively shut down coal-fired power plants, which provide inexpensive and reliable electricity but cannot reduce their emissions to the required levels using current technology.

Thousands of businesses will stop providing support services to coal-fired plants and coal mines. Many coal mines will have to reduce operations or close entirely, laying off numerous employees in the process.

Comments (1)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. John Minich says:

    My impression is that the E.P.A., et al., is doing this “for your own good” and/or whatever. How is it good for me if I can’t afford it? I have epi-pens to use in case of a severe reaction. The listed maximum storage temperature is 77 deg. F. The max. range is about 11 deg. I need affordable, reliable energy. There are a number medical situations that require reliable power. I have yet to hear the governor of California promise to get energy for his “high speed train” only from wind and solar sources. As a point of law, the E.P.A. does not legally exist, in that the Constitution does not grant the federal government that power. See article 1 and the tenth amendment. James Madison made it clear about “promote the general welfare”, that using that clause to mean everything for the general welfare or nothing, the only justifiable understanding is that it means nothing.

Leave a Reply to John Minich




If you want a picture to show with your comment, go get a Gravatar.