Word is that the Clean Power Plan rules will be released next week. My inbox has been overflowing with items related to it, so let’s touch on that again today.

A couple of days ago, the New York Times reported that it had talked with an anonymous source who indicated the plan will be stronger in many ways, but it will allow more flexibility in regard to the compliance time frame.

 The original framework required states to submit their carbon reduction plans by 2016, with an option to extend the deadline to 2017, and implement them and demonstrate compliance by 2020. According to the Times’ source, the final rule would extend the deadline for states to submit their plans by one year, to 2018, and it would give states two more years—until 2022—to implement those plans and demonstrate compliance.

So we’ll soon find out of this is true; it very likely is. A lot of the complaining has stemmed from the short compliance timeframe, so that will help alleviate those concerns.

However, there will still be legal challenges from coal and power companies, conservative states and others, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Today, the Natural Resource Defense Council recently held a press conference and released a brief on why it is likely those challenges will fail.

According to NRDC, there are two factors suggest that the courts will ultimately uphold the carbon pollution standards: the fact that the EPA has an excellent track record in clean air cases—polluting industries have lost outright approximately 70 percent of their legal challenges, and 90 percent at least partially.

And, such is the case in the recent MATS ruling, when EPA has lost, the agency is still allowed to move forward with its initiative, with some adjustments.

The second factor is that challenges have to be filed no later than 60 days after the rule is published in the Federal Register, and no earlier than the publication date. According to NRDC, some litigants have already filed cases too soon and in the wrong court, with the main objective of these challenges is just to slow everything down, attract media attention and gain political points.

So what does this mean? Even though there could be litigation over the next couple of years, states should continue business-as-usual and keep up the crafting of their plans.

On a different note, one that is perhaps most important to our industry, the EPA’s biogenic carbon framework is certain to be MIA. Speculation has been, for quite a while, that it will not be ready when the CPP rules are. As the final days pass before they come out, that prediction remains the same—in fact, as my friend and policy expert Jessie Stolark at the Energy and Environmental Study Institute points out, the Scientific Advisory Board has stakeholder engagement calls scheduled for next week and another one in early September, so that’s probably the biggest clue.

The SAB panel has stated before during one of its task force calls that, for them, it is not about policy or getting the framework out to align with it, it is about getting the science right.

More to come soon.