29 States that are challenging the Environmental Protection Agency‘s Clean Power Plan on Tuesday urged the US Supreme Court to block the controversial regulations slashing carbon emissions from existing power plants while they’re being litigated, after the Washington, D.C. Circuit refused to issue a stay last week.
The D.C. Circuit said Thursday that states and industry groups challenging the Clean Power Plan hadn’t satisfied the strict requirements for granting a stay.
In its Supreme Court application for a stay, West Virginia and 28 other states and state agencies argued that a majority of justices would likely agree that the US Environmental Protection Agency doesn’t have the Clean Air Act authority to craft the rule.
The MATS Precedent
The states might have a strong case for the stay simply because the High Court — at least a 5-4 majority of the justices — sided with them in an earlier case, last year, that pitted the EPA against a similar group of states involving its toxic emissions rule, which tried to limit mercury and air toxics, aka MATS.
That ruling set a major precedent for federal agencies, that they had to consider compliance costs before laying down rules and regulations. This would seem to favor the states filing suit to stop the CPP, as its compliance costs are not calculated, in any way, into the “plan.”
States are, rather, given up to three years to come up with their own plans to implement the CPP, although they may elect to have the EPA do that work for them.
The Effect of a Stay
Of course, the Supreme Court still might not stay the rule while the case is heard and simply wait for the D.C. circuit — which did move the case up on its docket to June — to rule and then hear an appeal to its decision, no matter which side wins. That would mean states would need to comply for a process that could take at least a year to shake out in the legal system.
Remembering that the EPA would only need to sway one justice to its way of thinking, then, perhaps the compliance process playing out over a year could favor the federal government. But, considering that Justice Scalia wrote the opinion in the MATS case, the precedent seems to be staunchly against them.
“It is not rational, never mind ‘appropriate,’ to impose billions of dollars in economic costs in return for a few dollars in health or environmental benefits. Statutory context supports this reading,” Scalia wrote in the MATS decision.