Via KFYR 5: 

Coal has been referred to as North Dakota’s “old faithful,” Coal produces 80 percent of the state’s electricity, and since it’s an inexpensive way to produce energy, it keeps power costs low.

However, the Obama Administration wants to cut down on greenhouse carbon emissions through the EPA’s Clean Power Plan.

Last week 25 states came together in opposition to the plan, yet North Dakota was not on that list.

Since the announcement of the EPA’s final rule on the Clean Power Plan, legislators and the attorneygeneral’s office have been working on delaying it separately from other states. They feel North Dakota’s coal industry has unique circumstances.

“North Dakota is heavily dependent on coal for electricity. With the EPA’s Clean Power Plan the state would have to reduce carbon dioxide emissions 45 percent by 2030. Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem and his team filed a lawsuit Friday challenging the Clean Power Plan.

“North Dakota has the largest deposit of lignite coal in the world, and so, this is something of unique and serious concern to us in North Dakota. If this rule proceeds as it is written it will mean the likely closure of some of our power plants here in North Dakota, our coal mines, and have a devastating impact on our economy,” said Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem

Stenehjem says it goes against the Clean Air Act where state and local government control the amount of air pollution. He says it’s unconstitutional and illegal. Environmentalists disagree and think that delaying it further is a disservice since climate change and global warming is happening now.

“We have a really small window to reduce our carbon emissions before we reach what scientists call a tipping point. We really do need to get started on this and the Clean Power Plan provides a way to get there that is fair across the country,” said Wayde Schafer, Sierra Club.

Once the lawsuit is reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court Chief of Justice, the EPA will have a chance to respond.

Once the EPA responds, the justices will decide if the court will put the plan on hold. Stenehjem thinks they have a good argument, but should the state lose, it has until September to put a plan in place.

See the article here.