Oops: Obama administration repeatedly told UN EPA ‘climate regs’ were ‘legally bulletproof’
Cato’s Ilya Shapiro summarized the situation succinctly:
The Supreme Court’s stay of the Clean Power Plan is a welcome development. The regulations constitute an unprecedented assertion of agency authority – particularly the dubious invocation of Section 111 of the Clean Air Act to justify regulating power-plant emissions – so the Court had to step in to prevent irrevocable harm to the energy sector. As we saw last term in Michigan v. EPA, often it’s too late to fix administrative abuses judicially after the fact. Lawlessness must be nipped in the bud.
And this move may have foreshadowed the death knell of the Clean Power Plan altogether; the only question is whether the justices will have a chance to strike it down for good before the next president reverses it.
Lots has been written on it. In addition to Ilya’s, below is a sampling of others offering good insights. There are many more, and we apologize to those whose comments should have made this list but were left off (through negligence or space).
David Rivkin and Andrew Grossman: “Pulling the Plug on Obama’s Power Plan”
Jonathan Adler: “Supreme Court puts the brakes on the EPA’s Clean Power Plan”
Amy Harder and Brent Kendall: “Carbon-Rule Stay Puts Obama Environmental Legacy on the Line”
Wall Street Journal Editors: “A Supreme Carbon Rebuke”
Competitive Enterprise Institute: “Supreme Court Puts EPA’s Clean Power Plan on Hold”
While there are many interesting lines of discussion about the SCOTUS decision, one that is particularly intriguing is the impact that the Clean Power Plan stay will have on the adoption of the Paris Climate Agreement.