When Carrier Air Conditioners and other air conditioner manufacturers sued to block federal rules that required them to post emissions data on their air condition unit labels, they argued that the government had no authority to require them to do so.
In March, the Supreme Law Enforcement Division of the Department of Labor ruled in favor of Carrier and other manufacturers, finding that the Clean Air Act does not require manufacturers to post a label on air condition units, nor does it require them even to put the unit label on the air condition package.
In other words, manufacturers did not have to do anything to comply with the Clean Energy Standards Act (CESA) that the Obama administration had set to go into effect in 2020.
It’s unclear what the court will decide in the future, but the Carrier decision has already put a spotlight on the way the Trump administration has handled climate change and energy issues, particularly in the face of growing bipartisan support for policies that have already created an economic downturn.
The Supreme Court’s ruling came on the same day as the Supreme Judicial Court in Indiana issued its first opinion in a case that could determine the fate of the Clean Power Plan, the centerpiece of the Obama-era energy policy, which requires states to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases from their power plants.
In the case of the Supreme Ct, the justices are set to hear arguments in the case on November 5.
In recent months, the Trump Administration has made moves to roll back the Clean power Plan, with the latest move announced in February.
The new plan, which the administration has called “a giveaway to the coal industry,” would roll back a requirement for all states to submit data on CO2 emissions from their plants to the federal government by the end of 2022.
The plan also would impose onerous regulations on coal plants that would lead to the closure of dozens of coal plants across the country.
According to the Trump White House, the plan would cost the economy $2.7 trillion over the next ten years, according to a report by the Union of Concerned Scientists.
But the plan’s actual cost is much higher, as it would cost an estimated $10 trillion in lost economic activity over the decade.
The proposed Clean Power plan would also require that coal plants retrofit their pollution controls, including retrofitting equipment, reducing energy use, and reducing emissions of particulates, which are linked to respiratory disease, and acid rain.
A number of studies have also found that the CO2 rule is harmful to the health of American consumers, and a recent poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that 60 percent of Americans believe the Cleanpower Plan will harm the economy, while 26 percent think it will help the economy.
The decision in the Carrier case was a major setback for the CleanPower Plan, which has been hailed as the cleanest, most cost-effective, and least harmful policy ever proposed.
A separate lawsuit filed by a coalition of consumer groups, consumer advocacy groups, and climate scientists in September found that by requiring companies to post the CO3 emissions data, the CleanPact will have the opposite effect of protecting consumers from CO2 pollution.
The plaintiffs in the cases argued that a requirement to post CO2 data would make it easier for companies to deny the public health risks associated with their emissions, and would force them to make costly and politically risky adjustments to their operations that could have adverse impacts on consumers.
The court has also made a number of rulings that have impacted the way energy companies operate.
Earlier this year, the court ruled that oil refiners were exempt from the Clean Water Act, in part because of their ability to manipulate emissions in order to make profits.
And the court has ruled in several other cases that states have the authority to limit emissions from power plants, as long as they do not impose on-site limits on emissions.
The Carrier case, in contrast, is one of the first times the Supreme court has weighed in on the question of whether states have a right to limit CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
For decades, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department’s Office of Enforcement have been enforcing the CleanAir Act, which sets out standards for how states are to monitor greenhouse gas emissions.
While the Supreme Courts has long upheld the EPA’s authority to enforce the Cleanair Act, the Obama Administration had issued an order that set out specific requirements for how it could enforce the law.
The EPA and the EPA are required to collect data on emissions from all types of fossil fuels, including coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear, and to report those emissions to the states, the White House has said.
The CleanPower Act, however, is not an enforcement agency, and it has no authority over how states implement the law, the administration explained.
The administration has argued that Congress has not provided the EPA with the authority it has to enforce CO2 laws.
“The EPA has no statutory authority to promulgate standards for the