Eighteen states and the District of Columbia are supporting the Environmental Protection Agency in court after half the country sued to block the agency’s Clean Power Plan.
New York, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Massachusetts, Virginia and the District signed on to a motion filed in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in support of the EPA’s plan to regulate carbon emissions at new and existing power plants.
The cities of Boulder, Colo., Chicago, New York, Philadelphia and South Miami also joined the motion.
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said the group of states and cities wants to defend the plan to make sure action is taken on climate change. Many scientists blame the burning of fossil fuels and the subsequent release of carbon dioxide for causing climate change.
“The EPA’s Clean Power Plan is a critical step forward in responding to the threat of climate change,” he said. “The rule is firmly grounded in science and the law. The rule incorporates successful strategies New York and other states have used to cut climate change pollution from power plants while maintaining electricity reliability, holding the line on utility bills, and growing our economies.”
Twenty-six states have filed a lawsuit against the EPA in the appeals court to block the Clean Power Plan, the Obama administration’s cuts for existing power plants, while 24 states filed a lawsuit on Tuesday challenging the administration’s rules for new power plants.
Multiple resolutions have been introduced in both chambers of Congress to block the Clean Power Plan, and one Republican lawmaker has introduced a bill to stop the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases completely.
According to the motion filed in court Wednesday, the state officials believe there is compelling reason to comply with the Clean Power Plan and pointed to their own efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in recent years. The federal regulation would help further their efforts to cut down on emissions, the motion states.
The motion also says the states that have sued to block the rule do not adequately represent the opinions of all of the states.
“As representatives of the interests of their citizens, state and municipal intervenors’ interests in these consolidated cases differ from those of other parties,” the motion states. “In addition, state and municipal intervenors have unique sovereign interests in limiting climate change pollution in order to prevent and mitigate loss and damage to publicly owned coastal property, to protect public infrastructure, and to limit emergency response costs borne by the public.”
