Two New Views from RFF Researchers: The Effects of Supreme Court’s CPP Hold
Resources for the Future just posted two new blogs on effects from the Supreme Court’s stay of the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Clean Power Plan(CPP) to curb carbon emissions.
The first new post is from Senior Fellow Dallas Burtraw: The Supreme Court's CPP Ruling: Likely a Small Impact on Emissions. In it, Burtraw writes:
“The Supreme Court has surprised all parties by freezing obligations under EPA’s Clean Power Plan (CPP) until it fully reviews the plan, which is likely by mid-2017. The action has rattled international partners and sparked various political celebrations or dismay. But what is the impact on emissions outcomes in the United States in 2025? Most likely: none at all. . . However, the Court’s decision has introduced uncertainty in the international context; the plan is a centerpiece of the President’s Climate Action Plan and of the US pledge in Paris. This week I have been asked by international colleagues and policymakers whether this means the United States will be unable to sign the Paris agreement before the April 21 deadline.”
Read Dallas Burtraw’s full blog: The Supreme Court's CPP Ruling: Likely a Small Impact on Emissions
The second new post is by Senior Fellow Josh Linn: A Pyrrhic Victory at the Supreme Court? In it, Linn writes:
“This week the Supreme Court halted implementation of EPA’s Clean Power Plan. Because the plan requires gradual emissions reductions using existing technologies, meeting the emissions targets is unlikely to be all that costly. The court’s action and the broader legal and political uncertainty will only increase the ultimate costs of the Clean Power Plan if it survives legal challenges.. . . Many states have generated considerable momentum in coordinating market-based policies. These states can prove the naysayers wrong by showing that they can greatly reduce carbon emissions without wrecking the economy. The delay caused by the stay slows down momentum and increases uncertainty about future policy, leaving states to scramble if EPA ultimately prevails in court. The legal and political uncertainty created by the court challenges and the upcoming presidential election present a major obstacle to states’ efforts to keep costs low.”
Read Josh Linn’s full blog: A Pyrrhic Victory at the Supreme Court?
Resources for the Future (RFF) is an independent, nonprofit research institution in Washington, DC. Its mission is to improve environmental, energy, and natural resource decisions through impartial economic research and policy engagement. RFF is committed to being the most widely trusted source of research insights and policy solutions leading to a healthy environment and a thriving economy.
Unless otherwise stated, the views expressed here are those of the individual authors and may differ from those of other RFF experts, its officers, or its directors. RFF does not take positions on specific legislative proposals.
For more information, please see our media resources page or contact Media Relations and Communications Specialist Annie McDarris.
