The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is moving forward with its "model rule" for complying with the Clean Power Plan despite ongoing legal uncertainty about the future of the regulations.
The agency on 3 November sent the final version of its model trading rule to the White House Office of Management and Budget for review. Such reviews typically take about 60 days, but can last longer.
The rule will serve as a model emissions trading program states can adopt to comply with the Clean Power Plan, which requires them to hit power sector CO2 emissions targets from 2022-2030. States will be able to use it for either a rate-based trading system, which targets reductions in CO2 per MWh of generation, or a mass-based program that targets overall emissions.
For states that do not submit a compliance plan to EPA, the agency would enforce the model rule as a federal plan. EPA has said it will chose only one path, either rate-based or mass-based, for all states in which the federal plan is enforced.
EPA has been criticized for moving ahead with the trading plan and other measures for its Clean Power Plan, even as the regulation remains in legal limbo. Last week, more than two dozen state attorneys general slammed EPA for continuing work on its Clean Energy Incentive Program, despite the US Supreme Court stay of the Clean Power Plan.
"By moving forward with this rulemaking, EPA has ignored explicit instruction from the court, throwing years of well-established case law out the window," said Montana attorney general Tim Fox (R), one of the attorneys general that submitted comments on the incentive plan to EPA.
The program seeks to encourage development of renewable energy and energy efficiency projects in the two years before the Clean Power Plan's targets take effect in 2022. The public comment period for the incentive program closed on 1 November.
The Supreme Court in February issued a stay to block the EPA from enforcing the Clean Power Plan while courts determine its legality. Dozens of utilities, coal companies and industry groups, along with 26 states, are challenging the agency's plan. The DC Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in late September.
