Group of 16 states questions legality of rules
FRANKFORT, Ky. (Aug. 6, 2015) — Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway today joined Attorneys General from 15 other states in asking the Environmental Protection Agency to halt implementation of Clean Power Plan rules by filing an administrative stay with the agency.
The group wants to delay the Sept. 6, 2016 deadline for states to submit compliant plans to the EPA, to give states time to pursue legal options challenging the legality of the rules.
“I am proud to partner with our neighboring states and friends across the aisle to fight this job-killing rule,” Conway said. “I sued to stop this rule when it was first proposed. Now that it has come out in its final form, we will continue to challenge it aggressively at every opportunity. I believe, once again, the courts will rule that the EPA has overstepped its authority.”
The other states are: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.
The revised rules call for a 32 percent reduction in greenhouse gases by 2020, instead of the original 30 percent, but give states more time and broader options to comply with state-by-state limits still to be set by EPA.
The plan relies more on renewable energy sources, calling for them to provide 28 percent of U.S. power by 2030, up from 22 percent in the first plan, and keeps natural gas’s share of electricity generation at current levels rather than increasing it.
“The Obama administration’s claim that the Clean Air Act of 1970 provides the new legislative authority for the EPA to regulate the entire electrical power generation of our country, on top of the regulation by the Department of Energy, is an extreme executive overreach of its authority. Simply said, the President cannot write new laws instead of Congress,” said Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller. “Both of our states have every right to question EPA’s actions, and I’m pleased to join my colleagues from other states on a bipartisan basis in raising this question to the federal court.”