This time the federal tax subsidies are at stake ...
Supreme Court Halts EPA Power Grab

Supreme Court Halts EPA Power Grab
In an unexpected move, the Supreme Court this week issued a stay on implementing controversial new EPA regulations on U.S. power plants until a lawsuit filed by 27 states against the EPA rules can be fully adjudicated in the courts.
How you react to the decision depends on which issue matters most to you: climate change and CO2 emissions, or jobs and lower heating/cooling bills.
The left is outraged – and the right is relieved – by the Court's action to halt the EPA’s Clean Power Plan (CPP) regulations. Most everyone is surprised, particularly court watchers:
…while the Supreme Court's action is, in many respects, without precedent, so too is the CPP. It is not only the most ambitious climate-related initiative undertaken by the EPA, but it also relies upon unprecedented assertions of legal authority. And, to be clear, by "unprecedented" I mean just that – without precedent.
Key legal issues involved, according to law professor Jonathan Adler:
- "The biggest legal question about the CPP is whether the EPA has the legal authority to impose these regulatory requirements on existing power plants under Section 111(d) [of the clean Air Act] in the first place."
- If EPA does have such authority, "there is a question about the extent to which the EPA can look at so-called 'outside the fenceline' measures – such as the substitution of renewables for coal generation – to set a standard for emission reductions at coal-fired power plants."
- "Another set of arguments focuses on the EPA's development of the rule in the regulatory process [since], the challengers argue, the EPA made so many changes between the original proposal and the final rule that the resulting CPP was not a 'logical outgrowth' of the proposal."
- Additionally, "there are questions about whether it is adequately demonstrated that the projected emission reductions can be met at a reasonable cost, and whether the EPA impermissibly relied upon federally subsidized energy projects in making these determinations."
- Finally, there is the question of whether the new regulations would make any climate change difference: "…the CPP – for all its ambition – will not do much to reduce atmospheric concentrations of GHGs" [i.e., greenhouse gases].
The Court's decision to halt the EPA's enforcement of the plan until final legal adjudication postpones for now the $366 billion dollar costs of the plan and the anticipated double-digit percentage increases in average electricity bills for residents in 43 states.