Appeals court unanimously sides with Biden administration on updated power plant rules
A federal appeals court on Friday unanimously denied a lawsuit from a coalition of Republican attorneys general and the fossil fuel industry seeking to block the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) pollution standards for power plants. The three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit sided with the EPA on the standards, required under the Clean Air Act, which regulate emissions from fossil fuel-fired power plants. The EPA unveiled the new standards in April, nearly two years after the Supreme Court blocked the Obama-era version of the plan. Twenty-seven Republican state attorneys general sued for a stay of the plan, citing the Supreme Court decision. In its ruling, the panel disagreed, writing that “petitioners have not shown they are likely to succeed on [their] claims given the record in this case. Nor does this case implicate a major question under West Virginia v. EPA … because EPA has claimed only the power to ‘set emissions limits under Section 111 based on the application of measures that would reduce pollution by causing the regulated source to operate more cleanly[,]’ a type of conduct that falls well within EPA’s bailiwick.” The Environmental Defense Fund, which filed an amicus brief in support of the EPA, praised the decision. “Climate change is here and it is harming all of us. Americans across the nation are suffering from the intense heat waves, extreme storms and flooding, and increased wildfires caused by climate pollution,” Vickie Patton, general counsel for the EDF, said in a statement. “EPA has a legal responsibility, mandated by Congress, to control harmful climate pollution, which the court recognized today. We will continue to strongly defend EPA’s cost-effective and achievable carbon pollution standards for power plants.” West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrissey’s (R) office vowed to appeal the stay to the Supreme Court in a statement to The Hill. “Our position remains the same: this rule strips the states of important discretion while using technologies that don’t work in the real world. Adding injury to unlawfulness, the Biden administration packaged this rule with several other rules aimed at destroying traditional energy providers,” Morrissey said in a statement. “We plan to seek a stay from the U.S. Supreme Court as soon as possible.” The ruling comes the month after the Supreme Court overturned the so-called Chevron doctrine, which gave federal agencies broad discretion in interpreting the law
A federal appeals court on Friday unanimously denied a lawsuit from a coalition of Republican attorneys general and the fossil fuel industry seeking to block the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) pollution standards for power plants. The three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit sided with the EPA on the standards, required...
A federal appeals court on Friday unanimously denied a lawsuit from a coalition of Republican attorneys general and the fossil fuel industry seeking to block the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) pollution standards for power plants.
The three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit sided with the EPA on the standards, required under the Clean Air Act, which regulate emissions from fossil fuel-fired power plants.
The EPA unveiled the new standards in April, nearly two years after the Supreme Court blocked the Obama-era version of the plan. Twenty-seven Republican state attorneys general sued for a stay of the plan, citing the Supreme Court decision.
In its ruling, the panel disagreed, writing that “petitioners have not shown they are likely to succeed on [their] claims given the record in this case. Nor does this case implicate a major question under West Virginia v. EPA … because EPA has claimed only the power to ‘set emissions limits under Section 111 based on the application of measures that would reduce pollution by causing the regulated source to operate more cleanly[,]’ a type of conduct that falls well within EPA’s bailiwick.”
The Environmental Defense Fund, which filed an amicus brief in support of the EPA, praised the decision.
“Climate change is here and it is harming all of us. Americans across the nation are suffering from the intense heat waves, extreme storms and flooding, and increased wildfires caused by climate pollution,” Vickie Patton, general counsel for the EDF, said in a statement. “EPA has a legal responsibility, mandated by Congress, to control harmful climate pollution, which the court recognized today. We will continue to strongly defend EPA’s cost-effective and achievable carbon pollution standards for power plants.”
West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrissey’s (R) office vowed to appeal the stay to the Supreme Court in a statement to The Hill.
“Our position remains the same: this rule strips the states of important discretion while using technologies that don’t work in the real world. Adding injury to unlawfulness, the Biden administration packaged this rule with several other rules aimed at destroying traditional energy providers,” Morrissey said in a statement. “We plan to seek a stay from the U.S. Supreme Court as soon as possible.”
The ruling comes the month after the Supreme Court overturned the so-called Chevron doctrine, which gave federal agencies broad discretion in interpreting the law