ARTICLE
9 November 2016

En Banc Panel At D.C. Circuit Hears Seven-Hour Oral Argument In Challenge To Clean Power Plan

JD
Jones Day

Contributor

Jones Day is a global law firm with more than 2,500 lawyers across five continents. The Firm is distinguished by a singular tradition of client service; the mutual commitment to, and the seamless collaboration of, a true partnership; formidable legal talent across multiple disciplines and jurisdictions; and shared professional values that focus on client needs.
On September 27, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit heard oral argument before an en banc panel in West Virginia v. EPA.
United States Environment
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

On September 27, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit heard oral argument before an en banc panel in West Virginia v. EPA , a case involving challenges to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's ("EPA") 2015 rule known as the Clean Power Plan ("CPP"). The CPP regulates carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants. Oral argument lasted approximately seven hours, with the court hearing from various advocates for the states, industry, and EPA. 

Argument was divided according to five of the major topics addressed in the briefing: statutory issues other than Section 112 of the Clean Air Act; Section 112; constitutional issues; notice issues; and record-based issues not submitted on the briefs.

The D.C. Circuit seemed most receptive to the petitioners' statutory arguments. In particular, the petitioners argue that the Clean Air Act provision EPA relied upon in promulgating the CPP, Section 111(d), applies to individual sources, and that the CPP is unlawful because the rule's performance rates cannot be achieved by any single source. Instead, the CPP necessitates "generation-shifting," requiring owners or operators of existing sources to comply by subsidizing other, lower-emitting generation rather than by improving emission performance at their own sources. If the court rules in favor of the petitioners on these grounds, it may not reach many of the other arguments. The court's opinion is not expected until late 2016 or early 2017. Additional information regarding the oral argument in West Virginia v. EPA is available here.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More