Clean Power Plan stayed by SCOTUS

  

Plan cited as harmful to Missouri by Koster, Richardson

 

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. – Attorney General Chris Koster late Tuesday night said the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has granted an application for stay of the Clean Power Plan.

The stay application was filed by Missouri and 20 other states that are suing the EPA for exceeding its authority in issuing new regulations, collectively known as the “Clean Power Plan,” that set strict limits on carbon emissions for each state. The stay will remain in effect pending disposition of the lawsuit, including through any appeal to the United States Supreme Court.

House Speaker Todd Richardson applauded SCOTUS’ ruling.

Richardson
Richardson

“I was pleased to see the Supreme Court put a freeze on President Obama’s burdensome energy regulations,” said Richardson. “We have already been dealing with the negative impacts these new rules would have on Missouri. This decision will help us keep Missouri’s energy costs low, save countless dollars in implementation costs, and preserve jobs in the energy sector. The legal fight will go on, but we will continue to oppose undue burdens on our energy production.”

Koster argued that EPA exceeded its authority in setting new standards and that the cost of compliance puts Missouri’s economic strength at risk.

Koster
Koster

“This is the third time in the past year this office has stopped the EPA from overreaching into Missouri’s affairs,” said Koster. “In staying the rule, the Supreme Court ensured the rule’s legality will be tested before Missouri ratepayers could be forced to bear the burden of compliance.”

This ruling follows previous successful efforts by Koster to stop or stay new EPA regulations. Previously, Koster sued to stop the EPA’s new definition of “Waters of the United States.” The United States Court of Appeals granted a stay of the regulation. And last June, at the request of Koster and 19 other states, the United States Supreme Court overturned a new EPA rule involving mercury emission standards.

Despite this progress, Koster noted that Missouri’s energy producers estimate that complying with EPA’s deadlines would cost the state more than $6 billion. He argued that Missouri is better off maintaining the competitive advantage it enjoys through low-energy costs while continuing to develop low- and zero-emission sources of energy on a more reasonable timeline. “Renewable energy is a vital piece of our state’s energy portfolio,” Koster said. “It is essential, however, that we achieve this goal in an economically responsible way that makes sense for Missouri.”

“I will continue to fight against federal overreach and to keep Missouri strong,” Koster concluded.