West Virginia vs. EPA Part II: U.S. Supreme Court Applies the Major Questions Doctrine to limit EPA Regulatory Authority
West Virginia vs. EPA: An Environmental Regulations Case with Broad Implications for Agency Power
Jones Day Talks: Developments in Germany's Wind Power Regulations
What Happened: West Virginia v. EPA - In West Virginia v. EPA, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Jones Day client, the North American Coal Corporation, and determined that the EPA did not have clear authorization from...more
The Clean Power Plan is a program developed by the Environmental Protection Agency to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by forcing electric power generation to shift from coal-fired plants to renewable sources, such as wind and...more
The conservative cases in support of Chevron deference keep arriving. This week, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed EPA’s federal implementation plan for compliance with its regional haze regulations by the Navajo...more
Late in the day on Tuesday, February 9, the U.S. Supreme Court stayed, for at least a year and possibly longer, the implementation of the Clean Power Plan (CPP), the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s)...more
On August 3, 2015, President Obama and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a new set of final regulations aimed at reducing carbon output from power plants. The sweeping new Clean Power Plan (CPP) sets limits...more
On June 29, 2015, the Supreme Court cast serious doubt upon the future of the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (“MATS”) by finding that the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) failed to adequately consider the costs of...more
The U.S. Supreme Court’s June 29th decision in Michigan v. EPA, taken together with another significant CAA opinion from last term, Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, demonstrates the Court’s proclivity for subjecting...more
The Supreme Court on Monday dealt a setback to the Environmental Protection Agency’s regulation limiting mercury and other toxic emissions from power plants – the “mercury rule.” In Michigan v. Environmental Protection...more
Delivering a sharp blow to President Obama’s efforts to regulate coal plants, the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) 2012 Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) rule, finding that...more
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court halted further implementation of a U.S. EPA’s regulation limiting mercury and other hazardous air toxic emissions from coal- and oil-fired electric power plants. In a 5-4 decision, the...more
The Mercury and Air Toxics Standards rule ("MATS") for electric utility steam generating units has been reversed and remanded with the Supreme Court’s much-anticipated decision in Michigan v. EPA on June 29, 2015. Writing for...more
On June 29, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered another warning to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) against overstepping its statutory authority under the Clean Air Act. In Michigan v. Environmental Protection...more
On June 29, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was wrong not to consider the cost of compliance when it decided to regulate mercury and other air toxic substances emitted from power...more
On June 29, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court in Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency invalidated the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Mercury and Toxic Air Standards (MATS) regulation by a 5 to 4 vote, finding that...more
While the Court’s decision marks a symbolic defeat for EPA, it may not significantly alter power plant operators’ compliance efforts. In a much anticipated decision delivered on the last day of the term, the Supreme...more
The US Supreme Court held yesterday that the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) unreasonably failed to consider costs when it made the initial decision to regulate emissions of hazardous air pollutants from power...more
On June 29, 2015, the United States Supreme Court decided Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 14-46, and two other consolidated cases, holding that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) acted unreasonably,...more
Today the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) improperly refused to consider costs when it decided to regulate mercury and other hazardous emissions. The EPA regulated power plant...more
The U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Michigan v. EPA, reversing a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and holding that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must consider...more