Section 111(b) requires EPA to establish “standards of performance” for new sources within designated categories. Section 111(d) is a corollary to CAA Section 111(b). Under the Obama Administration, EPA seized upon a seldom used provision of the CAA-Section 111(d)-as a basis for sweeping regulation of GHG emissions from existing power plants, especially coal-fired plants. Below is a short summary of how and why this issue reached the Supreme Court, as well as key takeaways from the decision. The Court’s ruling does, however, allow EPA other options to mitigate GHG emissions from fossil fuel-fired power plants. In a 6-3 ruling, written by Chief Justice Roberts, the Court held that EPA exceeded its authority under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act (“ CAA”) to “compel the transfer of power generating capacity from existing sources”-chiefly, coal and natural gas power plants-“to wind and solar.” At issue was whether a regulation “restructuring the Nation’s overall mix of electricity generation, to transition from 38% coal to 27% coal by 2030, can be the within the meaning of Section 111.” Importantly, the ruling applied the “major questions doctrine” to limit EPA’s authority, and that of other federal agencies, to make a “decision of vast economic and political significance” absent express congressional authorization. On its face, the decision limited EPA’s authority to reduce greenhouse gas ( GHG) emissions from the electric power sector.
This case not only has environmental law implications, but also speaks directly to executive agency overreach in potentially many other contexts. On Jthe Supreme Court decided West Virginia v.
0 kommentar(er)
