Renewable Revolution

 
 Oral arguments on the legality of the Clean Power Plan (CPP) begin today, kicking off a series of arguments, appeals and apparently, advertisements. And regardless of how these judges (six appointed by Ds, four by Rs) rule in the D.C. District Court, a West Virginia vs EPA Supreme Court showdown is nearly a sure thing. 
 
 So here’s a run-down of preliminary coverage. Two GOP-appointed EPA administrators penned an op-ed for the NY Times that explains Why Obama is right on clean energy. Their main point is that the CPP is in line with 45 years of the federal government’s power to set standards that states find ways to meet. Also at NYT is an explainer about why the clerical error that stipulates that the EPA can’t regulate something twice (think double jeopardy) has bearing on the ruling. But one expert was quoted saying such an interpretation is not likely to be endorsed by the court, as it is “like exempting restaurants from food handling requirements because they are subject to the fire code.”
 
Law professor Alice Kaswan explains in The Hill that aside from the climate benefits, “the rule could prevent 3,600 premature deaths, 90,000 asthma attacks, and 300,000 missed work and school days each year, leading to air quality-related economic benefits of at least $11 to $28 billion by 2030.”


But you wouldn’t hear that from the WSJ, who offered up about a third of yesterday’s opinion page for attacks on the CPP, with an editorial as well as an op-ed by lawyers Rivkin and Grossman. Both pieces clutch their pearls and stick to tired talking points. Even their rhetoric remains the same, as this week’s editorial headline, The ‘Clean Power’ Putsch, echoes one published last year when they dubbed it the Climate-Change Putsch. (They have yet to fully break Godwin’s law and refer in name to Hitler’s failed Beer Hall Putsch, so cheers to that...)
 
 The fossil fuel industry’s full court press extends beyond the WSJ. The “clean coal” lobby has taken the unusual (but not unprecedented) approach of running fear-mongering radio ads about how the life and climate-saving CPP will render legislators incapable of protecting their constituents (apparently “constituents” means fossil fuel companies). This hyperbolic ad sounds like a parody of melodramatic movie trailers, made complete by the video version that literally shows the constitution burning. That bit of over-the-top imagery is based on a quote from Peabody Energy’s lawyer Lawrence Tribe, but as PoliticoPro’s coverage explains, the ad flirts with rules prohibiting lawyers communicating with judges outside the courtroom. Using of one of the lawyer’s quotes is, if nothing else, “highly unprofessional,” according to an ethics lawyer from the George W. Bush administration.
 
 Whether or not the judges will be persuaded remains to be seen. Since recent reporting shows most of the states suing over the plan being too burdensome are nevertheless already on track to meet its targets, challengers have an uphill battle. But unfortunately, even if the plan goes ahead, we’ll still need more emission reductions to meet the Paris goals, as evidenced by another new study.
 
 By striking the plan down then, we’d be even further from climate safety. So this courtroom drama is truly courting disaster.