UARG Decision — Due Any Day Now — Should Not Undermine the Legality of CAA Section 111d Rules
Case involves statutory interpretation questions not relevant to power plant rules
The U.S. Supreme Court should issue a decision in Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG) v. EPA very soon, perhaps as early as Monday (the Court typically issues its opinions on Mondays and Thursdays at 10:00 a.m. EST). The case involves an important set of regulations designed to regulate greenhouse gases from large new "sources" (industrial facilities, chemical plants, power plants, etc.) through a permitting process that determines, for each individual plant, the ste...
CONTINUE READINGDoes OIRA Live Up To Its Own Standards?
OIRA should conduct a cost-benefit analysis of its own activities and explore alternatives to its current oversight methods.
A White House office called OIRA polices regulations by other agencies in the executive branch. OIRA essentially performs the role of a traditional regulator – it issues regulations that bind other agencies, and agencies need OIRA approval before they can issue their own regulations. Essentially, then OIRA regulates agencies like EPA the same way that those agencies regulate industry. Issuing regulations and permits is a very traditional form of regulation, often...
CONTINUE READINGPART IV – EPA’s Proposed 111(d) Rule: Some Insights & Open Legal Questions
The fourth and final post in a series offering some initial insights and observations, and posing several open legal questions related to EPA’s proposed 111(d) rule.
This is the fourth and final post in a series offering some initial insights and observations, and posing several open legal questions related to EPA’s proposed 111(d) rule. (See Parts I, II, & III.) Over the course of this series, I welcome our knowledgeable and insightful LegalPlanet audience to join the dialogue in the comments. What strikes you about the proposed rule? What legal questions puzzle you? What are your thoughts on the below issues? My fir...
CONTINUE READINGSupreme Court: North Carolina Tort Plaintiffs Can’t Sue for Latent Injuries from Contaminated Sites
Court holds that federal law doesn't preempt state statutes of repose
This morning, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in CTS Corp. v. Waldburger. In this case, which my colleague Jesse Lueders described and analyzed in detail here and here, the Court had to decide whether state statutes of repose can bar tort lawsuits by people harmed by latent injuries from toxic contamination, by imposing a cutoff date for bringing suit that runs before the injured parties are even aware that they have been harmed. The Court's answer? Ye...
CONTINUE READINGAnd Now For Something Completely Different: Chemical Facility Safety?
For the past few days we have all been focused—justifiably—on the EPA’s proposed carbon rule for power plants. But that’s not all EPA and the rest of the federal government have been up to recently. Today a federal interagency working group established under Executive Order 13650, Improving Chemical Facility Safety and Security (“EO 13650”) issued its long-awaited report, outlining a plan of action for improving safety and security at the nation’s...
CONTINUE READINGPART III – EPA’s Proposed 111(d) Rule: Some Insights & Open Legal Questions
The third in a series of posts offering some initial insights and observations, and posing several open legal questions for conversation
This is the third in a series of posts offering some initial insights and observations, and posing several open legal questions related to EPA’s proposed 111(d) rule. (See the first and second posts.) Over the course of this series, I welcome our knowledgeable and insightful LegalPlanet audience to join the dialogue in the comments. What strikes you about the proposed rule? What legal questions puzzle you? What are your thoughts on the below issues? My first ...
CONTINUE READINGPART II – EPA’s Proposed 111(d) Rule: Some Insights & Open Legal Questions
The second in a series of posts offering some initial insights and observations, and posing several open legal questions for conversation
This post is the second in a series of posts offering some initial insights and observations, and posing several open legal questions related to EPA's proposed 111(d) rule. (See the first post here.) Over the course of this series of posts, I welcome our knowledgeable and insightful LegalPlanet audience to join the dialogue in the comments. What strikes you about the proposed rule? What legal questions puzzle you? What are your thoughts on the below issues? In m...
CONTINUE READINGLegislative Tantrums Over EPA’s Proposed Carbon Rule
Politico reports that eight state legislatures have passed bills protesting EPA's proposed power plant regulation, in at least one case refusing to comply with any eventual regulations. This was a childish tantrum rather than an adult response. The ultimate hope, according to Politico, is that many states will refuse to submit compliance plans, and that this will give EPA the impossible task of issuing detailed plans for each state. The model is the refusal o...
CONTINUE READINGCalifornia, climate change, and 111d
Four things the Golden State will note about EPA's power plant proposal
Here are four aspects of the 111d proposal of particular note to Legal Planet's home state. (1) California played a key role in helping to inspire -- and to justify as lawful -- EPA's building-blocks approach to setting state goals. EPA frequently refers to California’s suite of successful greenhouse gas mitigation programs as a partial model for the proposed rule (see pp. 99, 106-107, 150, 220, 267-68). By law, EPA's state goals must flow from emissions guide...
CONTINUE READINGEPA’s Proposed 111(d) Rule: Some Insights & Open Legal Questions (PART I)
The first in a series of posts offering some initial insights and observations, and posing several open legal questions for conversation
As LegalPlanet reported earlier this week, EPA has released a proposed rule to regulate carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from existing power plants under Clean Air Act § 111(d). You can read the full text of the proposed rule here. The rule would have the overall effect of reducing CO2 emissions from existing power plants or “electric generating units” (EGUs) in the United States 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. See prior LegalPlanet posts here, here, here, ...
CONTINUE READING