Alabama victorious as Supreme Court puts Obama's power plant regulations on hold

WASHINGTON — The United States Supreme court on Tuesday granted a request by roughly two dozen states, including Alabama, to put the Obama administration’s power plant-targeting carbon rules on hold. The move is being viewed as a significant, albeit not final blow to the administration’s global warming agenda.

“We disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision to stay the Clean Power Plan while litigation proceeds,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest said, adding that the administration plans to continue taking “aggressive steps to make forward progress to reduce carbon emissions.”

Alabama in October of last year joined 26 other states in suing the Obama administration over the president’s so called Clean Power Plan.

The plan, which would be implemented by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), would mandate a 750 million metric ton reduction in CO2 emissions through increased regulations on existing power plants, especially coal-fired plants.

A study released by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce last year predicts the environmental mandates in the plan would ultimately cost the United States more than 220,000 jobs.

According to the study, the proposed regulations will have a disproportionate impact on southern states, where energy costs would jump by $6.6 billion per year over the next decade-and-a-half. The “East-South-Central” region of Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee and Kentucky would see its GDP shrink by an estimated $2.2 billion and would lose 21,400 jobs as a result of the plan.

“The EPA under the guise of a so-called Clean Power strategy is actually attempting a radical transformation in the way electricity is generated in this country, forcing many to suffer higher heating and cooling costs and thousands more to lose their jobs all because it pleases the Obama Administration’s political supporters,” said Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange. “Arbitrary downsizing of cost-effective coal-generated electricity in many states, including Alabama, could cost over $25 billion nationally per year with consumers left to foot the bill.”

Not everyone was please with the high court’s ruling, though.

“The Clean Power Plan has a firm anchor in our nation’s clean air laws and a strong scientific record, and we look forward to presenting our case on the merits in the courts,” Vickie Patton, a lawyer for Environmental Defense Fund, told the Associated Press.

California Gov. Jerry Brown added that the court’s decision amounts to an “arbitrary roadblock” that “undermines America’s climate leadership.”

Arguments over the constitutionality of the Clean Power Plan are set to begin in early June. The court’s decision to halt the plan until the litigation concludes could indicate which way they are leaning.

The AP notes that “to convince the high court to temporarily halt the plan, opponents had to convince the justices that there was a ‘fair prospect’ the court might strike down the rule. The court also had to consider whether denying a stay would cause irreparable harm to the states and utility companies affected.”