By temporarily freezing the rule, the high court’s order raises fears that the centerpiece of the president’s clean power plan could be overturned

This article is more than 4 years old

This article is more than 4 years old

The supreme court agreed to block Barack Obama’s clean power plan on Tuesday, raising fears that the centrepiece of his climate change plan could be overturned.



The unexpected decision creates instant uncertainty about the future of Obama’s climate plan and the historic global agreement to fight climate change reached in Paris last December.



The White House registered its immediate disapproval, and said in a statement that the administration would continue taking “aggressive steps” to reduce climate pollution. “We disagree with the supreme court’s decision,” the White House said.

But officials told reporters in a conference call that they remained confident this was a “bump in the road”, and that the plan would prevail.

The officials also said Obama had been briefed and would speak on the decisions soon.

The high court halted Obama's climate change plan. This doesn't bode well | Scott Lemieux Read more

The surprising vote by the justices put a temporary freeze on Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rules cutting carbon emissions from power plants until the Washington DC circuit court of appeals hears challenges from 29, mainly Republican-led states, and dozens of corporations and industry groups. Arguments are scheduled for 2 June.



The 5-4 decision for a stay came as a shock to the EPA and environmental campaign groups, and was widely seen as a sign that opponents of the power plant rules have made a strong argument against the plan.



“We’re disappointed the rule has been stayed, but you can’t stay climate change and you can’t stay climate action,” said Melissa Harrison, an EPA spokeswoman. “We believe strongly in this rule and we will continue working with our partners to address carbon pollution.”

Margie Alt, the director of Environment America, said in a statement: “This decision is a huge loss for our kids’ future and for all Americans who care about the health of our planet, and a huge win for the polluters and the deniers.” She added that she hoped it would only be a temporary setback.



“It is not what we had hoped for,” Joanne Spalding, senior climate counsel for the Sierra Club, said. “We are disappointed.”

Opponents of the EPA rules – who had described the clean power plan as a “war on coal” – said the stay was an indication the carbon-cutting regulations would eventually be overturned.

West Virginia, one of the states leading the legal challenge, said it was thrilled at the outcome.

“Make no mistake – this is a great victory for West Virginia,” Patrick Morrisey, the state’s attorney general, said in a statement.

The main lobby group for the coal industry claimed the decision indicated the supreme court was leaning in their favor on the broader legal challenge.



“We are pleased the supreme court took this unprecedented step to protect the states from further economic harm while the courts are deciding whether the administration’s power plan is unlawful and unconstitutional,” said Mike Duncan, president of Americans for Clean Coal Electricity. “The stay is a signal the supreme court has serious concerns with the power plan. We’re optimistic the power plan will ultimately be rejected.”



Republicans in Congress claimed the stay was a rebuke to Obama’s use of his executive powers to fight climate change, in the absence of any legislative efforts. “Today’s decision by the Supreme Court is an important step toward reining in the Obama administration’s unprecedented abuse of executive power,” Deb Fischer, Republican Senator from Nebraska, said in a statement.

The plan was a linchpin of Obama’s climate agenda and was critical to the administration’s efforts to persuade nearly 200 countries to rally around the Paris agreement.

The rules were the first ever cutting climate pollution from power plants – the single largest source of carbon dioxide emissions in the US. They called for reducing carbon emissions from power plants by about one-third by 2030.

Obama and US officials have been adamant in their discussions with world leaders that the power plant rules would withstand legal challenges, and would come into force even if a Republican wins the White House next November.

The United Nations had invited world leaders to a signing ceremony on 22 April to finalize the agreement, and spur further action to cut emissions. White House officials said last month that they expected to unveil further climate actions in the lead-up to the ceremony.

Campaign groups insisted that the reasons for the stay would have little to no bearing on the case itself – and expressed confidence that the EPA ultimately would prevail. “The bottom line is that they still need to look closely at the case,” Spalding said.

Under the schedule set out by the EPA when it unveiled the rules last summer, states had until September to submit their plans for cutting emissions from power plants. Many of the states suing the EPA had been working on their plans.

But that schedule was now put in doubt by Tuesday’s decision – which raises the prospect that states may not finish their plans before Obama leaves the White House.

What happens next is that states can call pause on that work while the lower court considers arguments about the EPA’s authority to limit carbon pollution from power plants.

White House officials said the plan had been constructed to allow for such legal delays. States do not have to submit their final plans until 2018, and the rules do not come into force until 2022. “That glide path gives states and utilities ample time to get their plans in place, and that continues to be the case notwithstanding the decision today,” the officials said in the conference call.

But the decision was nevertheless a blow to the administration’s repeated claims that the rules were at little risk from the courts.

Gina McCarthy, the EPA administrator, had frequently expressed confidence that the EPA could beat back any legal challenge, citing previous supreme court decisions upholding the agency’s authority to cut carbon emissions.

The EPA had also chalked up a number of other legal victories against industry groups to block air pollution and other rules.

But the stay had shaken some of that confidence, and injected uncertainty into the energy transformation that was already taking place on the ground – even in the absence of the power plant rules.

America’s use of coal for electricity fell to an all-time low last year, and about 5% of coal-fired power plants were shut down. Most of that electricity was replaced with fracked natural gas, but wind and solar energy was also coming onto the grid.



“Today’s supreme court decision is a major setback,” said Gregory Wetstone, the president of the American Council on Renewable Energy. “But this is not the end of the story ... There is every reason to anticipate that, in the end, the court will affirm that the Clean Air Act does indeed provide authority to address the greenhouse emissions that are changing the global climate.”