Clean Power Plan
The Emperor’s New Endangerment Theory (Part III)
How did EPA get to the absurd conclusion that 1.5 billion tons of carbon emissions aren’t significant? Well might you ask.
There is a very good chance that a court would strike down a EPA’s current finding that carbon emissions from the U.S. power sector are too insignificant to regulate. EPA’s effort to explain its ultimate conclusion rests on a hodgepodge of poorly analyzed considerations, which obviously have been reverse engineered to lead to EPA’s preferred conclusion.
CONTINUE READINGThe Legal Complexities of Deregulating Power Plant Carbon Emissions
The Supreme Court struck down Obama’s powerplant regulation. but it didn’t endorse Trump’s first try either.
We are likely to end up with a Trump rule for powerplant emissions that is much weaker than the Biden rule, but not as weak as EPA’s effort in the first Trump Administration. And the process will take Trump longer this time, with a greater litigation risk.This matters because even a very weak rule may require significant investments in improving powerplant efficiency, which could result in some plant closures.
CONTINUE READINGTrump’s War on Environmental Protection: A Chronology
Yes, there were over 100 environmental rollbacks. Here are the biggest.
From when he took office to the day he left, Trump lead a steady drumbeat of environmental rollback after environmental rollback. His goals: eliminate limits on pollution from fossil fuels and end protection of public lands.
CONTINUE READINGWhy the New Climate Reg for Coal is a Perfectly Normal EPA Rule
EPA’s approach isn’t a novel innovation. It’s just EPA applying its usual approach.
The problem isn’t that EPA’s new climate regulation for power plants will crush the coal-fired generation industry. It’s that much of the industry is so economically weak it can’t survive any kind of regulation.
CONTINUE READINGThe Biden Power Plant Rule and the Major Question Doctrine
The new rule has hardly any of the features that caused the Supreme Court to strike down the Obama rule.
We’ve already started to hear claims that the Biden power plant rule falls under the major question doctrine, which the Supreme Court used to strike down Obama’s Clean Power Plan. Are those claims plausible? Consider the aspects of the Clean Power Plan that the Supreme Court found objectionable. I’ve identified eight factors that the Court …
Continue reading “The Biden Power Plant Rule and the Major Question Doctrine”
CONTINUE READINGThe Presidency Under Siege
The current Justices are no friends of presidential power.
As recent scholarship has shown, the Supreme Court has been increasingly aggressive in countering exercises of presidential power. From the environmental perspective, West Virginia v. EPA is the most relevant example of the Court’s efforts to cut the presidency down to size. True, the Court purported to be chastising EPA, part of the bureaucracy. Yet …
Continue reading “The Presidency Under Siege”
CONTINUE READINGDoes the New Climate Law Expand Regulatory Authority?
It’s not the game changer some people think, but IRA could help in several ways.
There’s been a lot of recent talk about whether the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) indirectly overrides West Virginia v. EPA. The answer to that is probably “no.” However, some IRA provisions will help lawyers defend certain regulatory actions. IRA may also have an important framing effect when courts are considering the reasonableness of agency actions. …
Continue reading “Does the New Climate Law Expand Regulatory Authority?”
CONTINUE READINGEmerging Answers to Major Questions
We’re beginning to get a clearer understanding of the major questions doctrine.
In November, I wrote a post posing “some major questions about the major questions doctrine.” In West Virginia v. EPA, Chief Justice Roberts starts supplying some answers to those questions. In particular, he seems to be using a narrower four-factor approach to decide what constitutes a “major question.” As we all know, the West Virginia case …
Continue reading “Emerging Answers to Major Questions”
CONTINUE READINGWest Virginia v. EPA: A Quick Explainer
This video lays out the issues, what the Court did, and where EPA can go from here.
CONTINUE READINGEPA’s Best Option: Co-Firing
Yesterday’s decision leaves open a powerful regulatory tool.
What can EPA do to cut carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants after yesterday’s decision in West Virginia v. EPA? The decision clearly ruled out any direct mandate to shift generation from coal generators to cleaner power generators. But the Supreme Court didn’t endorse Trump’s ultra-limited interpretation of the law either. This leaves EPA with …
Continue reading “EPA’s Best Option: Co-Firing”
CONTINUE READINGJoin Our Mailing List
Climate policy is changing rapidly. Stay in the loop with expert analysis via email Monday - Friday.
