A crucial element of Obama is planned to stop limit change has been stopped short by the Supreme Court. And just this is what the EPA's order requiring states to cut greenhouse gases from plants. It would not have taken full effect until 2030 and were expected to cause a shutdown of Nicole-fired plants. This is potentially devastating to the climate deal negotiated in Paris last year. Joining me is Glenn Smith. Welcome to the program. Thank you. And also joining me today is Nicole Capretz, executive director, Climate Action Campaign. Welcome to the program. Thank you. Generally speaking, the court leaves the question of whether to pulled a challenge government law or policy in advance up to the lower courts. The first court to be dealing with this is the DC circuit that deals with administrative matters. They voted not to stay or put on hold temporarily this policy. The court usually respects that and doesn't go the other way which is what it did in this case. So it would've had to have usually follow this legal trail through various courts to see whether a state would be put into place but the Supreme Court stepped in after the very first challenge was made. With the regulations normally been in-4 slowly challenge made its way through the courts? Good point. We presume that a government policy or law is valid unless and until a Challenger establishes that it is not. If the court had not taken the action it did yesterday, then the EPA and its officials would have worked on this policy. And state officials and industry would have worked on this. So when I think a policies under litigation and review people may put it on a back burner. But it would've been technically pending and it is no longer. Nicole, the EPA mandates to cut pollution from energy plan, that whole mandate has been described as an essential part of the presidents climate plan. Would you agree with that? Yes. The kind of cutbacks were they asking for? Pretty significant reduction of carbon emissions from power plants which are a significant driver of carbon pollution nationally. As I understand it, this would have affected the entire United States. California has its own goals in cutting back pollution from non--renewable sources energy. But this would have targeted state that don't have any such plans. Exactly. It is definitely a disappointment. It speaks for the need from change to start from the ground up. What we are going to see is as more cities and mayors understand the implications of the dangers of climate change and what it does to weather conditions and impact on day-2 hget day quality of life. There will be propulsion of state and local government to tell federal government they need to do more. They argued it should not take effect because first of all, the policy was significantly altering their authority over utility rate regulation and other state regulation matters. They also argued that the industry in their states would already have to begin taking actions or expending substantial funds to figure out what kind of actions to take in response to this policy. It was a combination of concern about state power versus federal power which may have resonated with one particular justice. And concerns about industry spending substantial some are -- sums. The justice that matters, Justice Kennedy, is often a swing voter between what would be called sometime conservative and sometimes liberal justices. He is concerned about state sovereignty and that the federal government not displace the state. That was a prominent element of the briefs. They were trying to obviously appeal to him. Because it takes five justices to vote for this. It shows he is initially sympathetic to that point of view. But you have to take all of this with a grain of salt in this preliminary phase. The states are already bearing cost of climate change. They point to the storm damage from the excessively-aggressiveness towards and from drought. Is that a valid argument, Nicole? Do you think the states can show they suffered these costs because of our changing climate? Yes. Exactly. I'm persuaded it's going to be the mayors and governors of the states, all 50 states, that are impacted by the changing climate and they will demand action from the federal level. We speak about our role in history. We know we will experience drought in San Diego. We know about the dangers of fires in San Diego. We knew we had to take action. I think you will see more and more mayors and governors say to the federal government you need to take action. We are back to the place we visited previously does the Obama administration to the EPA have authority to declare this kind of a sweeping mandate? Yes. That is what several hours of argument before the DC circuit are going to explore. Like most of the statutory questions of how the different sections of the lot mess with each other, it's a very complicated multi-phase argument. Again, usually the court let this percolate its way through the appellate courts at least. At least the first appellate court. It seems to have at least thought that there's enough merit to the argument with the EPA lacks power to sit stop the policy. Therefore you have this policy that is now stayed by the U.S. Supreme Court. You have the presidents executive action on immigration that he wanted to forward and that has been stopped by a stay which I believe it's been upheld by the Supreme Court. Is this an indication that the Supreme Court is challenging the president's use of executive action? It has not yet approved or disapproved any of the lower court stays. That is still in play. But your broader point certainly says, this is one of several cases the court has looked at whether the administration is acting within its authority. And it is expanding the issues in a couple of different ways. Early printing of the state suggested that it's looking at the administration's actions that the latter part of the term. Nicole, I know you have a strong feeling that a lot of what is going to work when it comes to climate change, reversing climate change will come from a local level. We had a big international conference in Paris and the president use the idea that he was going to crack down on these cold-fired plants and energy emission plan as a central part of his argument to the other nations and the world. What effect do you think that this legal stay have on the global efforts to reduce climate change? It certainly does call into question the leadership and capability of the United States to fulfill its commitment. Also in. -- Paris was a compact of mayors throughout the country who were locally committing the action and understanding that for change is going to occur and where investments are going to happen to start our economy to a clean energy economy. We are seeing in the energy sector and overwhelming support and adoption of renewable energy qualities. They make sense and grow the economy. I think there will be a lot of synergy between the private and public sector and figuring out these solutions. Hopefully internationally we can scale and replicate these solutions so we are not dependent on one decision from one Supreme Court and one nation. I have been talking with Nicole Capretz, executive director, Climate Action Campaign and with Glenn Smith, professor of constitutional law, California Western School of Law . Thank you both.
A divided Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to halt enforcement of President Barack Obama's sweeping plan to address climate change until after legal challenges are resolved.
The surprising move is a blow to the administration and a victory for the coalition of 27 mostly Republican-led states and industry opponents that call the regulations "an unprecedented power grab."
By temporarily freezing the rule the high court's order signals that opponents have made a strong argument against the plan. A federal appeals court last month refused to put it on hold.
Related: San Diego Commits To Slashing Greenhouse Gases
The court's four liberal justices said they would have denied the request.
The plan aims to stave off the worst predicted impacts of climate change by reducing carbon dioxide emissions at existing power plants by about one-third by 2030.
Appellate arguments are set to begin June 2.
The compliance period starts in 2022, but states must submit their plans to the Environmental Protection Administration by September or seek an extension.
California and San Diego both have their own carbon reduction mandates that are still in place. San Diego recently passed a Climate Action Plan that commits to cutting in half carbon emission by the year 2035.
Nicole Capretz, director of the nonprofit advocacy group Climate Action Campaign, told KPBS Midday Edition that the Supreme Court's decision is "a disappointment," but said it also "speaks to the need for change to start from the ground up."
"We need to get large cities and states to take action," she said. "What we are going to see is as more cities and mayors understand the implications of the dangers of climate change, what it will do to extreme weather conditions, what it will do to sea level rise and how it will impact their day-to-day day quality of life, there will be propulsion of local government officials telling the state and local governments they need to do more."
Many states opposing the plan depend on economic activity tied to such fossil fuels as coal, oil and gas. They argued that power plants will have to spend billions of dollars to begin complying with a rule that may end up being overturned.
Implementation of the rules is considered essential to the United States meeting emissions-reduction targets in a global climate agreement signed in Paris last month. The Obama administration and environmental groups also say the plan will spur new clean-energy jobs.
To convince the high court to temporarily halt the plan, opponents had to convince the justices that there was a "fair prospect" the court would strike down the rule. The court also had to consider whether denying a stay would cause irreparable harm to the states and utility companies affected.
