More than 200 current and former federal lawmakers signed onto a brief in defense of President Obama’s signature environmental regulation as it faces its first major legal challenge.
The Clean Power Plan, Obama’s greenhouse gas emissions goals for states on new and existing coal power plants, goes in front of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in June. On Friday, 208 current and former lawmakers announced their support for the Clean Power Plan in the brief, which included two former Republican lawmakers.
“That’s no April Fool’s joke,” said Massachusetts Sen. Ed Markey, a Democrat.
The Clean Power Plan faces a legal challenge from 30 states and a host of fossil fuel industry groups. It was stayed last month by the Supreme Court while the case is pending.
Many Republicans have pointed to the Supreme Court’s decision to block the regulation as a sign that it will be struck down by the courts, but Democrats on a call with reporters Friday were united in their confidence that the Clean Power Plan has a solid legal foundation.
Rep. Frank Pallone, D-N.J., said the legal arguments put forward by Republicans are similar to the ones he’s heard in House Energy and Commerce Committee hearings. He doesn’t put much stock in Republican complaints.
“It was quite clear that none of the arguments that have been put forth by the Republicans, which are ultimately the same arguments being brought in this court action, had any basis,” he said.
The two former Republican lawmakers who signed onto the brief are David Durenberger, a former senator from Minnesota, and Sherwood Boehlert, a former representative from New York.
The brief also includes support from prominent Democrats such as House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders.
Rep. Jared Huffman, D-Calif., touted the fact that there are more lawmakers on the brief supporting the Clean Power Plan than Republicans were able to get on a brief supporting the regulation’s demise. In February, 205 lawmakers signed onto a brief seeking the legal defeat of the Clean Power Plan.
Huffman said the Environmental Protection Agency followed Congress’ direction in proposing the Clean Power Plan.
“The EPA is just doing its job as directed by Congress under the Clean Air Act,” he said. “That’s the point we make in this brief. And, make no mistake, the Clean Power Plan is on solid legal ground.”
One of the points the lawmakers sought to ram home was that the Clean Air Act gives the EPA leeway in which pollutants it can regulate.
Opponents of the regulation often argue that the Clean Air Act never specifically mentions carbon dioxide as a pollutant, and therefore the EPA cannot regulate CO2 emissions. Many scientists blame the burning of fossil fuels, and the subsequent release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, for causing climate change and the warming of the globe.
However, Markey said the Clean Air Act gives the EPA the authority to regulate both known and unknown sources of air pollution, a position proponents of the regulation say was buttressed by a Supreme Court decision in 2007.
“The Clean Air Act gives the EPA authority to regulate air pollution and that’s what they are doing with the Clean Power Plan rule,” he said.
The brief filed by the current and former lawmakers wasn’t the only supportive argument sent to the court Friday.
More than 50 city and county governments from 28 states signed onto a brief supporting the regulation along with the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National League of Cities and the mayors of Dallas, Knoxville, Tenn., and Orlando, Fla.
Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, the president of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, said implementation of the Clean Power Plan is crucial for cities.
“Mayors know cities have the most to gain, as well as the most to lose in this debate because climate change and rising sea levels threaten the physical structure of our cities,” she said. “Cities have been combating climate change for over a decade through our Mayors’ Climate Protection Agreement, but we need a national response.”
