What is this case about?
This case involves whether the EPA can issue a regulation that reduces greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants in the way that the Obama Administration attempted with the Clean Power Plan (CPP).
The CCP derives its authority from Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act ("Standards of performance for existing sources").
In the CPP, the EPA determined that the "best system of emissions reduction" (BSER) for reducing carbon dioxide from power plants, which the Court determined was an air pollutant, involved three building blocks.
Improving the plant’s efficiency which would result in less use of coal or natural gas to produce the same amount of electricity, thereby emitting less carbon emissions
Shifting from coal to renewable power sources (wind turbine to natural gas power plants)
EPA guidance is the “federal equivalent of the BSER” that the petitioners believe is needed to achieve the same emission reductions.
The "Major Question Doctrine" rests on what the Court considers a major transformation for the energy industry
Something transformative would imply a radical change in our energy system today
shifting from coal to natural gas or renewables is already happening
In fact, the CPP's goals have already been met
It is difficult to argue that a rule that imposes generation shifting is risking a transformative change to our country's energy system or economy when that change is in mid-course
Further, the Petitioner's arguments seem to restrict the flexibility built into the Clean Air Act
Congress granted EPA the authority to regulate "standards of performance" for any existing source for any air pollutant, and the Supreme Court has affirmed that standard as it applies to greenhouse gases
https://cesp.gmu.edu/west-virginia-v-epa-the-supreme-court-weights-epas-ability-to-write-major-rules-on-climate-change/
No comments:
Post a Comment