A date long-circled on energy-watchers’ calendars is here at last, with judges preparing to hear oral arguments Tuesday over the legality of the administration’s Clean Power Plan.
Attorneys representing numerous stakeholders affected by President Obama’s climate change rule for power plants will argue to a panel of judges why it should or should not be overturned in their view.
{mosads}The oral arguments ‚ all 218 minutes of them, are scheduled for Tuesday morning at the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
It marks a significant milestone in the life of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Clean Power Plan, which mandates a 32 percent cut in the power sector’s carbon dioxide emissions by 2030.
Conservative states, energy companies and business interests will lay out a slew of arguments, telling the 10 judges that numerous aspects of the rule violate the Clean Air Act, the Constitution or the rights of the states and businesses.
The Justice Department, assisted by environmental groups, and some states and businesses, though, will try to convince the judges that the rule fits squarely within the EPA’s authority.
The court’s ruling — and, ultimately, that of the Supreme Court, where the Clean Power Plan is destined to be considered — will have a major impact both on American environmental policy and President Obama’s climate legacy.
The ruling could also have an impact on international climate work: the Clean Power Plan is the central tenant of the American plan Obama presented to the world ahead of the formation of the Paris climate deal last year. The plan is vitally important if the U.S. hopes to meet its commitment under the deal.
A decision won’t be handed down in the coming week, however. So after Tuesday, the focus turns back to the Capitol, where members are working on a short-term funding bill they need to pass before the end of September.
Aid for Flint, Mich. will be at the center of the debate over the spending bill next week.
Many Democrats vowed on Thursday to oppose the spending bill if it doesn’t include money for Flint or other cities facing threats like drinking water tainted by lead. The current version of the bill includes emergency aid only for the Zika virus and Louisiana flooding, meaning Democrats can train their anger over the bill squarely on the lack of Flint funding.
“We Democrats cannot vote … for that substitute and urge others to vote against it,” Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) said on Thursday. “We believe that the people of Flint, Mich. … who have been waiting for more than one year, should be included in this continuing resolution.”
Florida Sen. Bill Nelson was unique among Democrats this week in publicly pledging to back the spending bill. He supports Flint, he said in a statement, but said he couldn’t vote against a bill with Zika aid, which is desperately needed in his state.
The House is set to consider its version of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) next week, which Republicans consider the proper vehicle for a $220 million improvement package for Flint. But only the Senate version includes that aid; they hope to move Flint funding in that bill. Lawmakers will have to add it to a final compromise package before the end of the year.
That’s not soon enough for Democrats, including Flint’s House member, Rep. Dan Kildee (D-Mich.).
“It’s difficult to accept logic that says this belongs in WRDA, but by the way, we’re not going to put this in WRDA,” he said.
Kildee said no Democrat he talked to would vote for a short-term spending bill without Flint aid, a pledge that sets up one last week of drama on Capitol Hill before the fall campaign season begins.
Recent stories:
-Democrats take aim at ND pipeline project
-Top Senate Dem: Dems won’t vote for funding bill over Flint
-Trump: Clinton wants a ‘war on energy’
-Obama inserts climate change into national security strategy
-Senate panel approves pension rescue for coal miners
-Tribes open new front in fight over pipelines
-Pipeline delay stirs anger, but not yet action, on Capitol Hill