Oklahoma, North Dakota and Missouri have now joined the 24 states that have filed a lawsuit following West Virginia’s lead on challenging the EPA’s Clean Power Plan. The Clean Power Plan aims to cut U.S. power plant emissions 32% by 2030 by forcing states to write plans to reduce emissions from the energy sector. The rule will essentially force states to shut down coal-fired power plants and use more natural gas and green energy to get electricity.
The states argument is that the Clean Power Plan is essentially a federal takeover of state resource and energy policy because it forces a shift away from coal regardless of a state’s own plans. It is also being challenged because it regulates power plants already covered by another section of the Clean Air Act.
On a call with reporters, West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey repeated many of the long-held arguments against the rule: that it will hurt his state’s coal mining industry, raise power rates for consumers and risk electricity reliability.
The Dow Jones U.S. Coal Index, has lost a stunning 95% of its value since July 2011 and a number of coal companies have filed for bankruptcy, including Alpha Natural Resources (ANRZQ), Walter Energy (WLTGQ), Patriot Coal and James River Coal (JRCCQ).
The EPA argues the rule will not completely eliminate coal use, and that coal will still be an important part of America’s power supply for years to come. But states that rely on coal for the vast majority of their electricity argue the rule will massively increase energy prices and require billions of dollars in new grid investments.
The states that have joined West Virginia’s lawsuit include AL, AR, AZ, CO, FL, GA, IN, KS, KY, LA, MI, MO, MS, MT, NC, ND, NE, NJ, OH, OK, SC, SD, TX, UT, WI, and WY.
3 thoughts on “27 States against the EPA’s Clean Power Plan”
I feel the new rules will reduce carbon emissions from power plants for the first time. The states argument is that the Clean Power Plan is essentially a federal takeover of state resources and energy policy because it forces a shift away from coal regardless of a state’s own plans. Interesting to see the decision of the court in this matter.
It is typically more exivespne for you to designate “green” power. It is a method to subsidize the building of more wind power, but in reality wind power is not any more “green” than nuclear power. The intermittent nature of wind power makes it necessary to have some sort of “backup” power, usually gas, wind uses much more concrete and steel than nuclear power for the same amount of megawatts. Wind power actually has a larger “footprint” than nuclear power, it takes more land to produce the same amount of power. We need to explore all the methods of producing power while minimizing the effect on the environment, this is one way of donating to that cause and voting with your $$.
The Clean Power Plan aims to cut U.S. power plant emissions 32% by 2030 by forcing states to write plans to reduce emissions from the energy sector. Where is this information?