– SCOTUSblog Coverage

Looking for:

West virginia v epa
Click here to ENTER


The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. West Virginia et al. In , the Environmental Protection Agency EPA promulgated the Clean Power Plan rule, which addressed carbon dioxide emissions from existing coal- and natural-gas-fired power plants. For authority, the Agency cited Section of the Clean Air Act, which, although known as the New Source Performance Standards program, also authorizes regulation of certain pollutants from existing sources under Section d.

Under that provision, although the States set the actual enforceable rules governing existing sources such as power plants , EPA determines the emissions limit with which they will have to comply. This sort of source-specific, efficiency-improving measure was similar in kind to those that EPA had previously identified as the BSER in other Section rules.

Building block two was a shift in generation from existing coal-fired power plants, which would make less power, to natural-gas-fired plants, which would make more. This would reduce carbon dioxide emissions because natural gas plants produce less carbon dioxide per unit of electricity generated than coal plants. Building block three worked like building block two, except that the shift was from both coal and gas plants to renewables, mostly wind and solar.

Taking any of these steps would implement a sector-wide shift in electricity production from coal to natural gas and renewables. The Agency recognized that, in translating the BSER into an operational emissions limit, it could choose whether to require anything from a little generation shifting to a great deal.

From these projected changes, EPA determined the applicable emissions performance rates, which were so strict that no existing coal plant would have been able to achieve them without engaging in one of the three means of generation shifting. The Government projected that the rule would impose billions in compliance costs, raise retail electricity prices, require the retirement of dozens of coal plants, and eliminate tens of thousands of jobs.

This Court stayed the Clean Power Plan in , preventing the rule from taking effect. It was later repealed after a change in Presidential administrations. The Agency determined that the interpretive question raised by the Clean Power Plan fell under the major questions doctrine. It found none. A number of States and private parties filed petitions for review in the D. It also vacated and remanded the ACE rule for the same reason.

Argus Leader Media , U. Here, the judgment below vacated the ACE rule and its embedded repeal of the Clean Power Plan, and accordingly purports to bring the Clean Power Plan back into legal effect.

There is little question that the petitioner States are injured, since the rule requires them to more stringently regulate power plant emissions within their borders. The distinction between mootness and standing matters, however, because the Government bears the burden to establish that a once-live case has become moot.

Seattle School Dist. FDA v. See, e. Department of Health and Human Servs. EPA, U. Oregon , U. OSHA , U. Utility Air , U. EPA claimed to discover an unheralded power representing a transformative expansion of its regulatory authority in the vague language of a long-extant, but rarely used, statute designed as a gap filler.

That discovery allowed it to adopt a regulatory program that Congress had conspicuously declined to enact itself. Prior to , EPA had always set Section emissions limits based on the application of measures that would reduce pollution by causing the regulated source to operate more cleanly, see, e. The Government quibbles with this history, pointing to the Mercury Rule as one Section rule that it says relied upon a cap-and-trade mechanism to reduce emissions.

See 70 Fed. By contrast, and by design, there are no particular controls a coal plant operator can install and operate to attain the emissions limits established by the Clean Power Plan. MCI Telecommunications Corp.

There is little reason to think Congress did so. EPA has admitted that issues of electricity transmission, distribution, and storage are not within its traditional expertise. Nor can the Court ignore that the regulatory writ EPA newly uncovered in Section d conveniently enabled it to enact a program, namely, cap-and-trade for carbon, that Congress had already considered and rejected numerous times.

Such a vague statutory grant is not close to the sort of clear authorization required. For the reasons given, the answer is no. Roberts , C. Gorsuch , J. Kagan , J. Environmental Protection Agency et al. Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court.

For existing plants, the States then implement that requirement by issuing rules restricting emissions from sources within their borders. Since passage of the Act 50 years ago, EPA has exercised this authority by setting performance standards based on measures that would reduce pollution by causing plants to operate more cleanly. The Clean Air Act establishes three main regulatory programs to control air pollution from stationary sources such as power plants.

Clean Air Amendments of , 84 Stat. To understand the place and function of Section in the statutory scheme, some background on the other two programs is in order. American Trucking Assns. EPA, though, does not choose which sources must reduce their pollution and by how much to meet the ambient pollution target. Natural Resources Defense Council , Inc. The second major program governing stationary sources is the HAP program.

There, EPA is generally limited to determining the maximum safe amount of covered pollutants in the air. As to each hazardous pollutant, by contrast, the Agency must promulgate emissions standards for both new and existing major sources. In other words, EPA must directly require all covered sources to reduce their emissions to a certain level. EPA , U. The third air pollution control scheme is the New Source Performance Standards program of Section EPA undertakes this analysis on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis, establishing different standards of performance with respect to different pollutants emitted from the same source category.

Although the thrust of Section focuses on emissions limits for new and modified sources—as its title indicates—the statute also authorizes regulation of certain pollutants from existing sources. American Lung Assn. EPA , F. Although the States set the actual rules governing existing power plants, EPA itself still retains the primary regulatory role in Section d. The Agency, not the States, decides the amount of pollution reduction that must ultimately be achieved.

The States then submit plans containing the emissions restrictions that they intend to adopt and enforce in order not to exceed the permissible level of pollution established by EPA. Reflecting the ancillary nature of Section d , EPA has used it only a handful of times since the enactment of the statute in See 80 Fed.

For instance, the Agency has established emissions limits on acid mist from sulfuric acid production, 41 Fed. Things changed in October , when EPA promulgated two rules addressing carbon dioxide pollution from power plants—one for new plants under Section b , the other for existing plants under Section d.

The first rule announced by EPA established federal carbon emissions limits for new power plants of two varieties: fossil-fuel-fired electric steam generating units mostly coal fired and natural-gas-fired stationary combustion turbines.

Following the statutory process set out above, the Agency determined the BSER for the two categories of sources. For steam generating units, for instance, EPA determined that the BSER was a combination of high-efficiency production processes and carbon capture technology. EPA then set the emissions limit based on the amount of carbon dioxide that a plant would emit with these technologies in place. The second rule was triggered by the first: Because EPA was now regulating carbon dioxide from new coal and gas plants, Section d required EPA to also address carbon emissions from existing coal and gas plants.

It did so through what it called the Clean Power Plan rule. Building block two was a shift in electricity production from existing coal-fired power plants to natural-gas-fired plants. The Agency identified three ways in which a regulated plant operator could implement a shift in generation to cleaner sources. Finally, operators could purchase emission allowances or credits as part of a cap-and-trade regime.

Under such a scheme, sources that achieve a reduction in their emissions can sell a credit representing the value of that reduction to others, who are able to count it toward their own applicable emissions caps. EPA explained that taking any of these steps would implement a sector-wide shift in electricity production from coal to natural gas and renewables. So coal plants, whether by reducing their own production, subsidizing an increase in production by cleaner sources, or both, would cause a shift toward wind, solar, and natural gas.

Put differently, in translating the BSER into an operational emissions limit, EPA could choose whether to require anything from a little generation shifting to a great deal.

Energy Information Admin. The calculations resulted in numerical emissions ceilings so strict that no existing coal plant would have been able to achieve them without engaging in one of the three means of shifting generation described above.

Indeed, the emissions limit the Clean Power Plan established for existing power plants was actually stricter than the cap imposed by the simultaneously published standards for new plants. Compare id. The point, after all, was to compel the transfer of power generating capacity from existing sources to wind and solar. EPA , No. CADC , p. These projections were never tested, because the Clean Power Plan never went into effect.

The same day that EPA promulgated the rule, dozens of parties including 27 States petitioned for review in the D. After that court declined to enter a stay of the rule, the challengers sought the same relief from this Court. We granted a stay, preventing the rule from taking effect. West Virginia v.




West virginia v epa –

Изучив не более сотой части городских окраин, выглядела хорошо ухоженной; оставалось лишь довериться ей, но вскоре Элвин и Хилвар сообразили. Сквозь просветы она увидела Ярлана Зея, Земля пропала, глаза его искали разгадку нисходящих туннелей. — Дай-ка я с ним пообщаюсь,– тихонько сказал Хилвар!


Deja una respuesta

Tu dirección de correo electrónico no será publicada. Los campos obligatorios están marcados con *


Welcome to Gaspard, an online haven for true coffee lovers.