The Clean Air act and the Clean Power Plan

“the Super Bowl of climate politics.”

Coalbot 27, an industry lobbyist, who also moonlights as Fox Sports official Football Robot

 The Clean Air Act was originally passed in 1963, and then had major amendments in 1970, 1977, and 1990. It is a US federal law created to regulate air pollution and the effects it has on our communities and the surrounding environment. The 1970 amendments are considered the most important, granting enforcement powers and regulations against industrial air pollution, in conjunction with the creation of the EPA.

Why is the Super Bowl of climate politics coming to a court room near you?

Justices Alito and Scalia

 In 2007 a group of states sued the EPA( Massachusetts vs. EPA), claiming that it was abdicating its responsibility under the Clean Air Act by not regulating greenhouse gas emissions from new automobiles. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1120.pdf

The Supreme Court agreed, and ordered the EPA to "ground its actions or inaction within the statue" (Clean Air Act) which led to the 2009 endangerment finding.

It was a landmark decision and a giant rebuke for President Bush at the time. Shortly after that decision another ruling was given on Environmental Defense v. Duke Energy Corp, which helped create even more precedent for what we are seeing now. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-848.pdf

In some of my favorite language from the former ruling, the EPA claims that any harm to the state of of Massachusetts would be small and incremental. The justices then proclaimed that rarely do regulations solve a problem in one fell swoop. It is indeed the incrementalism of regulation that closes in on the problem.

The Duke ruling also has the EPA joining forces with non governmental actors against the power company.

Fast forward to now, and the CAA showdown for these new rulings. The new rulings are part of the Clean Power Plan.
http://www.ncsl.org/research/energy/states-reactions-to-proposed-epa-greenhouse-gas-emissions-standards635333237.aspx

There has been a policy explosion in regards to these new rules. The state bills and state resolutions being passed are mostly in opposition to the new rules. See the link above.
If you want to laugh at the Texans, note that one of their state resolutions states that they refuse to recognize EPA regulations without congressional legislation, even though the Clean Air Act is congressional legislation. It failed.

These states have joined together in a lawsuit against the new rules:
Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

It is important to note that the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the cross state contaminant rule, the rule mentioned in the NYT article. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1182_553a.pdf
  
 
The sheer amount of legislators, lobbyists, environmental groups, government agencies, and other actors are building this battle to be "the Super Bowl" of climate politics.
Because the projected cost for compliance has been estimated in the billions of dollars. Many jobs are expected to go up in smoke. Rolling blackouts are predicted. It's as if these normally cornucopia style neo-liberal economic environmentalists are taking their devil horns off and wearing the the old saggy trousers of the neo-malthuesian. They present a doom and gloom scenario. Environmentalists hail this plan as a landmark ruling in the fight to slow down the effects of climate change. Even though this plan has global implications, health and air quality will be greatly affected at local levels due to the reduction of the 6 pollutants mentioned by the EPA.
The reason for the large cost is the requirement of sharp reductions of those 6 pollutants by power plant companies. The goal is to reduce emissions of these by 30% (of 2005 levels) by 2030.
For more information: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-10-23/pdf/2015-22842.pdf

Map above us: A quick glance at the 24 states involved in the lawsuit and where they are at with compliance policy. Note the grey states. I bet one could have some fun finding parallels with other extreme positions or policy within the same borders.