West Virginia v. EPA

rdf:langString West Virginia v. EPA

rdf:langString

rdf:langString West Virginia, et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al.

rdf:langString The North American Coal Corporation v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al.

rdf:langString Westmoreland Mining Holdings LLC v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al.

rdf:langString North Dakota v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al.

rdf:langString Kagan

rdf:langString Breyer, Sotomayor

rdf:langString Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett

rdf:langString ___

rdf:langString West Virginia v. EPA,

rdf:langString West Virginia, et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al.

rdf:langString The North American Coal Corporation v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al.

rdf:langString Westmoreland Mining Holdings LLC v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al.

rdf:langString North Dakota v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al.

rdf:langString Congress did not grant the Environmental Protection Agency in Section 111 of the Clean Air Act the authority to devise emissions caps based on the generation shifting approach the Agency took in the Clean Power Plan.

rdf:langString West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency

rdf:langString Roberts

rdf:langString Supreme Court

rdf:langString West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, 597 U.S. ___ (2022), was a U.S. Supreme Court case related to the Clean Air Act and the ability of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate carbon dioxide emissions related to climate change. The case centers on the Clean Power Plan (CPP) proposed by the EPA in 2015 by the Obama administration. Among the provisions, the CPP had included regulation at existing power plants under Section 7411(d) of Title 42 of the United States Code to implement "within the fence line" emissions reduction technology and "outside the fence line" generation shifting to alternative clean energy sources such as solar and wind power. The generation shifting aspects of the CPP were challenged by several states and coal industry companies, and the CPP was stayed by the courts and never came into enforcement. The Trump administration's EPA put forth a less-aggressive Affordable Clean Power rule in 2019 which was similarly and stayed by courts. The stay was challenged by multiple states and coal industry companies, seeking to question the EPA's ability to regulate existing power plants under 7411(d) as proposed in the CPP. In a 6–3 ruling issued on June 30, 2022, the Court ruled that the regulation of existing power plants in Section 7411(d) fell under the major questions doctrine, and within that, Congress did not grant the EPA authority to regulate emissions from existing plants based on generation shifting mechanisms, which would have invalidated the Clean Power Plan. The EPA may still continue to regulate emissions at existing plants through emissions reduction technologies.

rdf:langString Gorsuch

rdf:langString Alito