Seven SCOTUS justices agree: Obama’s $4B “clean power” slush fund is likely unconstitutional

◼ You can’t punish the states for failing to adopt a particular program by threatening to withhold funding on some other, unrelated program. And with seven SCOTUS justices agreeing, simply saying that two things are the same does not make it so. That sort of discretionary power would unleash a monster, allowing the Feds to cut off education funding if the state didn’t save the habitat of the purple billed panda grouse. - Jazz Shaw/HotAir

The President’s recent budget proposal contained all sorts of unpleasant surprises, but one item of interest to the green energy crowd was a four billion dollar, taxpayer generated slush fund designed to coerce states into complying with the EPA’s “clean energy” initiatives. States would qualify for a piece of the pie by coming into compliance with the costly mandates ahead of schedule.

The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity condemned President Obama’s 2016 Fiscal Year budget for prioritizing his politicized environmental policies at the expense of American families and businesses.

The proposal calls for the creation of a $4 billion fund – paid by taxpayers – to encourage states to comply with the Environmental Protection Agency’s costly Clean Power Plan. The $4 billion, however, is just a tiny fraction of the more than $366 billion in compliance costs associated with the plan. States can qualify for a portion of the $4 billion by reaching the targets stipulated by EPA in an accelerated manner or by exceeding EPA’s targets. A number of state governors have already cried foul at the cost and reliability impacts of the Clean Power Plan.

For every carrot there is a stick, though. While states might qualify for some cash if they toe the line on these mandates early, the administration is ready to cut their federal highway funding if they don’t manage to meet the requirements on time.