{ "id": "R44480", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "number": "R44480", "active": true, "source": "EveryCRSReport.com, University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "versions": [ { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 586946, "date": "2017-03-08", "retrieved": "2020-01-02T14:45:29.245962", "title": "Clean Power Plan: Legal Background and Pending Litigation in West Virginia v. EPA", "summary": "On October 23, 2015, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published its final Clean Power Plan rule (Rule) to regulate emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs), specifically carbon dioxide (CO2), from existing fossil fuel-fired power plants. The aim of the Rule, according to EPA, is to help protect human health and the environment from the impacts of climate change. The Clean Power Plan would require states to submit plans to achieve state-specific CO2 goals reflecting emission performance rates or emission levels for predominantly coal- and gas-fired power plants, with a series of interim goals culminating in final goals by 2030.\nThe Clean Power Plan has been one of the more singularly controversial environmental regulations ever promulgated by EPA, and the controversy is reflected in the enormous multi-party litigation over the Rule ongoing in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit). Numerous petitions challenging the Clean Power Plan have been consolidated into one case, West Virginia v. EPA. While the litigation is still ongoing at the circuit court level, an unusual mid-litigation application to the Supreme Court resulted in a stay of the Rule, meaning that the Rule does not have legal effect at least for the duration of the litigation. On September 27, 2016, the en banc (full court) D.C. Circuit heard oral argument for the case.\nThis report provides legal background on the Rule, its Clean Air Act (CAA) framework under Section 111, and climate-related lawsuits that have preceded the present litigation over the Clean Power Plan. It then gives an overview of the participants in the current litigation, including two groups of Members of Congress, who have offered briefs in support of both sides. This report highlights the major events in the litigation as of the date of publication, including the Supreme Court stay and oral argument, and the likely timetable of events in the near term.\nSome of the main arguments on the merits are then briefly summarized and excerpted from court filings, including\nthe standard of review to apply to EPA\u2019s action; \nthe scope of EPA\u2019s overall authority under CAA Section 111; \nwhether Section 111 allows the Clean Power Plan\u2019s inclusion of generation-shifting, such as from coal-fired power plants to lower-emitting sources of electricity; \nthe interpretation of a statutory exclusion in CAA Section 111 that cross-references CAA Section 112\u2019s regulation of hazardous air pollutants, particularly in light of the apparent enactment in 1990 of differing House and Senate amendments to the same cross-reference; \nconstitutional arguments relating to federalism and separation of powers; \nrecord-based challenges to the achievability and reasonableness of the Rule; and \narguments regarding rulemaking procedures.\nThis report concludes with a brief look at parallel litigation in the D.C. Circuit, consolidated as North Dakota v. EPA, which is challenging a related EPA regulation that imposes new source performance standards (NSPSs) limiting CO2 emissions from new, modified, and reconstructed fossil fuel-fired power plants.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44480", "sha1": "c0b12a7f7b1740097a8b899c87183b24d0d9a303", "filename": "files/20170308_R44480_c0b12a7f7b1740097a8b899c87183b24d0d9a303.html", "images": { "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R44480_files&id=/0.png": "files/20170308_R44480_images_de583319907128be240fe403c087e26b1d73b844.png" } }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44480", "sha1": "f53a32861e147bb6424e3d3381cf5eb006a1da42", "filename": "files/20170308_R44480_f53a32861e147bb6424e3d3381cf5eb006a1da42.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4750, "name": "Air Quality" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4756, "name": "Separation of Powers" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4816, "name": "Rulemaking & Judicial Review" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4842, "name": "Climate Change" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4862, "name": "Federalism" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 458191, "date": "2017-01-10", "retrieved": "2017-01-13T15:42:19.574461", "title": "Clean Power Plan: Legal Background and Pending Litigation in West Virginia v. EPA", "summary": "On October 23, 2015, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published its final Clean Power Plan rule (Rule) to regulate emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs), specifically carbon dioxide (CO2), from existing fossil fuel-fired power plants. The aim of the Rule, according to EPA, is to help protect human health and the environment from the impacts of climate change. The Clean Power Plan would require states to submit plans to achieve state-specific CO2 goals reflecting emission performance rates or emission levels for predominantly coal- and gas-fired power plants, with a series of interim goals culminating in final goals by 2030.\nThe Clean Power Plan has been one of the more singularly controversial environmental regulations ever promulgated by EPA, and the controversy is reflected in the enormous multi-party litigation over the Rule ongoing in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit). Numerous petitions challenging the Clean Power Plan have been consolidated into one case, West Virginia v. EPA. While the litigation is still ongoing at the circuit court level, an unusual mid-litigation application to the Supreme Court resulted in a stay of the Rule, meaning that the Rule does not have legal effect at least for the duration of the litigation. On September 27, 2016, the en banc (full court) D.C. Circuit heard oral argument for the case.\nThis report provides legal background on the Rule, its Clean Air Act (CAA) framework under Section 111, and climate-related lawsuits that have preceded the present litigation over the Clean Power Plan. It then gives an overview of the participants in the current litigation, including two groups of Members of Congress, who have offered briefs in support of both sides. This report highlights the major events in the litigation as of the date of publication, including the Supreme Court stay and oral argument, and the likely timetable of events in the near term.\nSome of the main arguments on the merits are then briefly summarized and excerpted from court filings, including\nthe standard of review to apply to EPA\u2019s action; \nthe scope of EPA\u2019s overall authority under CAA Section 111; \nwhether Section 111 allows the Clean Power Plan\u2019s inclusion of generation-shifting, such as from coal-fired power plants to lower-emitting sources of electricity; \nthe interpretation of a statutory exclusion in CAA Section 111 that cross-references CAA Section 112\u2019s regulation of hazardous air pollutants, particularly in light of the apparent enactment in 1990 of differing House and Senate amendments to the same cross-reference; \nconstitutional arguments relating to federalism and separation of powers; \nrecord-based challenges to the achievability and reasonableness of the Rule; and \narguments regarding rulemaking procedures.\nThis report concludes with a brief look at parallel litigation in the D.C. Circuit, consolidated as North Dakota v. EPA, which is challenging a related EPA regulation that imposes new source performance standards (NSPSs) limiting CO2 emissions from new, modified, and reconstructed fossil fuel-fired power plants.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44480", "sha1": "ed6e90751f35d364a50b1339b2e949631a8390b3", "filename": "files/20170110_R44480_ed6e90751f35d364a50b1339b2e949631a8390b3.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44480", "sha1": "c39381408af3924f8479d9d669cf099a45716ad0", "filename": "files/20170110_R44480_c39381408af3924f8479d9d669cf099a45716ad0.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4750, "name": "Air Quality" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4756, "name": "Separation of Powers" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4816, "name": "Rulemaking & Judicial Review" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4842, "name": "Climate Change" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4862, "name": "Federalism" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 456461, "date": "2016-10-13", "retrieved": "2016-10-24T14:51:48.368330", "title": "Clean Power Plan: Legal Background and Pending Litigation in West Virginia v. EPA", "summary": "On October 23, 2015, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published its final Clean Power Plan rule (Rule) to regulate emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs), specifically carbon dioxide (CO2), from existing fossil fuel-fired power plants. The aim of the Rule, according to EPA, is to help protect human health and the environment from the impacts of climate change. The Clean Power Plan would require states to submit plans to achieve state-specific CO2 goals reflecting emission performance rates or emission levels for predominantly coal- and gas-fired power plants, with a series of interim goals culminating in final goals by 2030.\nThe Clean Power Plan has been one of the more singularly controversial environmental regulations ever promulgated by EPA, and the controversy is reflected in the enormous multi-party litigation over the Rule ongoing in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit). Numerous petitions challenging the Clean Power Plan have been consolidated into one case, West Virginia v. EPA. While the litigation is still ongoing at the circuit court level, an unusual mid-litigation application to the Supreme Court resulted in a stay of the Rule, meaning that the Rule does not have legal effect at least for the duration of the litigation. On September 27, 2016, the en banc (full court) D.C. Circuit heard oral argument for the case.\nThis report provides legal background on the Rule, its Clean Air Act (CAA) framework under Section 111, and climate-related lawsuits that have preceded the present litigation over the Clean Power Plan. It then gives an overview of the participants in the current litigation, including two groups of Members of Congress, who have offered briefs in support of both sides. This report highlights the major events in the litigation as of the date of publication, including the Supreme Court stay and oral argument, and the likely timetable of events in the near term.\nSome of the main arguments on the merits are then briefly summarized and excerpted from court filings, including\nthe standard of review to apply to EPA\u2019s action; \nthe scope of EPA\u2019s overall authority under CAA Section 111; \nwhether Section 111 allows the Clean Power Plan\u2019s inclusion of generation-shifting, such as from coal-fired power plants to lower-emitting sources of electricity; \nthe interpretation of a statutory exclusion in CAA Section 111 that cross-references CAA Section 112\u2019s regulation of hazardous air pollutants, particularly in light of the apparent enactment in 1990 of differing House and Senate amendments to the same cross-reference; \nconstitutional arguments relating to federalism and separation of powers; \nrecord-based challenges to the achievability and reasonableness of the Rule; and \narguments regarding rulemaking procedures.\nThis report concludes with a brief look at parallel litigation in the D.C. Circuit, consolidated as North Dakota v. EPA, which is challenging a related EPA regulation that imposes new source performance standards (NSPSs) limiting CO2 emissions from new, modified, and reconstructed fossil fuel-fired power plants.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44480", "sha1": "f28ee0fbdb38aa3c06e55a5ddef3469b429ed885", "filename": "files/20161013_R44480_f28ee0fbdb38aa3c06e55a5ddef3469b429ed885.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44480", "sha1": "3bfb0e7d5e6f4da743bbcb75446429c1b3f062c7", "filename": "files/20161013_R44480_3bfb0e7d5e6f4da743bbcb75446429c1b3f062c7.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4750, "name": "Air Quality" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4756, "name": "Separation of Powers" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4816, "name": "Rulemaking & Judicial Review" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4842, "name": "Climate Change" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4862, "name": "Federalism" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 454922, "date": "2016-08-08", "retrieved": "2016-09-09T19:02:21.296427", "title": "Clean Power Plan: Legal Background and Pending Litigation in West Virginia v. EPA", "summary": "On October 23, 2015, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published its final Clean Power Plan rule (CPP or Rule) to regulate emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs), specifically carbon dioxide (CO2), from existing fossil fuel-fired power plants. The aim of the Rule, according to EPA, is to help protect human health and the environment from the impacts of climate change. The CPP would require states to submit plans to achieve state-specific CO2 goals reflecting emission performance rates or emission levels for predominantly coal- and gas-fired power plants, with a series of interim goals culminating in final goals by 2030.\nThe CPP has been one of the more singularly controversial environmental regulations ever promulgated by EPA, and the controversy surrounding the Rule is reflected in the enormous multi-party litigation over the Rule ongoing in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit). Numerous petitions challenging the CPP have been consolidated into one case, West Virginia v. EPA. While the litigation is still ongoing at the circuit court level, an unusual interlocutory\u2014that is, mid-litigation\u2014application to the Supreme Court resulted in a stay of the Rule, meaning that the Rule does not have legal effect at least for the duration of the litigation. On May 16, 2016, the D.C. Circuit, on its own motion, ordered the case to be heard in the first instance by the full court (en banc), rather than by the three-judge panel originally scheduled to hear the case, and rescheduled oral argument for September 27, 2016.\nThis report provides legal background on the Rule, its Clean Air Act (CAA) framework under Section 111, and climate-related lawsuits that have preceded the present litigation over the CPP. It then gives an overview of the participants in the current litigation, including two groups of Members of Congress, who have offered briefs in support of the petitioners and the respondents, respectively. This report explains the major events in the litigation as of the date of publication, including the Supreme Court stay, and the likely timetable of events in the near term.\nSome of the main arguments on the merits are then briefly summarized and excerpted from court filings, including\nthe standard of review to apply to EPA\u2019s action; \nthe scope of EPA\u2019s overall authority under CAA Section 111; \nwhether Section 111 allows the CPP\u2019s inclusion of generation-shifting, such as from coal-fired power plants to lower-emitting sources of electricity; \nthe interpretation of a statutory exclusion in CAA Section 111 that cross-references CAA Section 112\u2019s regulation of hazardous air pollutants, particularly in light of the apparent enactment in 1990 of differing House and Senate amendments to the same cross-reference; \nconstitutional arguments relating to federalism and separation of powers; \nrecord-based challenges to the achievability and reasonableness of the Rule; and \narguments regarding rulemaking procedures.\nThis report concludes with a brief look at parallel litigation in the D.C. Circuit, consolidated as North Dakota v. EPA, which is challenging a related EPA regulation that imposes new source performance standards (NSPSs) limiting CO2 emissions from new, modified, or reconstructed fossil fuel-fired power plants.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44480", "sha1": "162df5fe168933fb4b1ca2740f6bf4c80b62b6b2", "filename": "files/20160808_R44480_162df5fe168933fb4b1ca2740f6bf4c80b62b6b2.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44480", "sha1": "922173b717c696b461fa02891421b829b5f75c39", "filename": "files/20160808_R44480_922173b717c696b461fa02891421b829b5f75c39.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 258, "name": "Clean Air Act and Air Quality" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 452711, "date": "2016-05-18", "retrieved": "2016-05-24T19:06:23.128941", "title": "Clean Power Plan: Legal Background and Pending Litigation in West Virginia v. EPA", "summary": "On October 23, 2015, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published its final Clean Power Plan rule (CPP or Rule) to regulate emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs), specifically carbon dioxide (CO2), from existing fossil fuel-fired power plants. The aim of the Rule, according to EPA, is to help protect human health and the environment from the impacts of climate change. The CPP would require states to submit plans to achieve state-specific CO2 goals reflecting emission performance rates or emission levels for predominantly coal- and gas-fired power plants, with a series of interim goals culminating in final goals by 2030.\nThe CPP has been one of the more singularly controversial environmental regulations ever promulgated by EPA, and the controversy surrounding the Rule is reflected in the enormous multi-party litigation over the Rule ongoing in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit). Numerous petitions challenging the CPP have been consolidated into one case, West Virginia v. EPA. While the litigation is still ongoing at the circuit court level, an unusual interlocutory\u2014that is, mid-litigation\u2014application to the Supreme Court resulted in a stay of the Rule, meaning that the Rule does not have legal effect at least for the duration of the litigation. On May 16, 2016, the D.C. Circuit, on its own motion, ordered the case to be heard in the first instance by the full court (en banc), rather than by the three-judge panel originally scheduled to hear the case, and rescheduled oral argument for September 27, 2016.\nThis report provides legal background on the Rule, its Clean Air Act (CAA) framework under Section 111, and climate-related lawsuits that have preceded the present litigation over the CPP. It then gives an overview of the participants in the current litigation, including two groups of Members of Congress, who have offered briefs in support of the petitioners and the respondents, respectively. This report explains the major events in the litigation as of the date of publication, including the Supreme Court stay, and the likely timetable of events in the near term.\nSome of the main arguments on the merits are then briefly summarized and excerpted from court filings, including\nthe standard of review to apply to EPA\u2019s action; \nthe scope of EPA\u2019s overall authority under CAA Section 111; \nwhether Section 111 allows the CPP\u2019s inclusion of generation-shifting, such as from coal-fired power plants to lower-emitting sources of electricity; \nthe interpretation of a statutory exclusion in CAA Section 111 that cross-references CAA Section 112\u2019s regulation of hazardous air pollutants, particularly in light of the apparent enactment in 1990 of differing House and Senate amendments to the same cross-reference; \nconstitutional arguments relating to federalism and separation of powers; \nrecord-based challenges to the achievability and reasonableness of the Rule; and \narguments regarding rulemaking procedures.\nThis report concludes with a brief look at parallel litigation in the D.C. Circuit, consolidated as North Dakota v. EPA, which is challenging a related EPA regulation that imposes new source performance standards (NSPSs) limiting CO2 emissions from new, modified, or reconstructed fossil fuel-fired power plants.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44480", "sha1": "7921625bfb736e9bc344912737c4c7096f4d03fd", "filename": "files/20160518_R44480_7921625bfb736e9bc344912737c4c7096f4d03fd.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44480", "sha1": "786ffbec3dd58de4b1fe1740288df5d3cb56ad74", "filename": "files/20160518_R44480_786ffbec3dd58de4b1fe1740288df5d3cb56ad74.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 258, "name": "Clean Air Act and Air Quality" } ] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc855770/", "id": "R44480_2016Apr27", "date": "2016-04-27", "retrieved": "2016-08-07T13:31:21", "title": "Clean Power Plan: Legal Background and Pending Litigation in West Virginia v. EPA", "summary": "This report provides legal background on the Clean Power Plan rule (CPP) to regulate emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs), its Clean Air Act (CAA) framework under Section 111, and climate-related lawsuits that have preceded the present litigation over the CPP. It then gives an overview of the participants in the current litigation, including two groups of Members of Congress, who have offered briefs in support of the petitioners and the respondents, respectively. This report explains the major events in the litigation as of the date of publication, including the Supreme Court stay, and the likely timetable of events in the near term.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20160427_R44480_9747075865b4bae7ad4da2e5231d237fb7938e82.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20160427_R44480_9747075865b4bae7ad4da2e5231d237fb7938e82.html" } ], "topics": [ { "source": "LIV", "id": "Energy", "name": "Energy" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Environmental protection", "name": "Environmental protection" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Environmental law and legislation", "name": "Environmental law and legislation" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Greenhouse gases", "name": "Greenhouse gases" } ] } ], "topics": [ "Constitutional Questions" ] }