While carbon emissions are widely believed to be contributing to climate change, the U.S. has done little to limit the massive amounts of carbon being introduced into the atmosphere by electricity producing power plants. The Clean Power Plan (CPP) was to be the first major piece of legislation to reducing these emissions. While the plan carried estimated net benefits in the tens of billions of dollars, twenty-seven states filed a lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), eventually leading to a Supreme Court Stay. This paper theoretically and empirically analyzes the incentives that influenced state-level politicians to either support the plan or sue in protest. Results suggest that political affiliations and fossil fuel electricity production are two major determinates, while the estimated benefits of climate change mitigation and the severity of state specific targets have no statistically significant effect.