Guest Post

  • September 28, 2016
    Guest Post

    In February, the Supreme Court of the United States stayed implementation of the Clean Power Plan, which provides the EPA with its best chance to cut future greenhouse gas emissions. On Tuesday, Sept. 27, the United State Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit will hear oral arguments in a consolidated case, known as West Virginia, et. al. v. EPA. This case will determine whether it is within the EPA’s power to regulate air quality by setting strict standards for carbon emission. ACS invited experts to explore the issues that will be presented before the Court.

    by David Arkush, Director, Congress Watch, Public Citizen

    We are often told that environmental concerns are akin to luxury goods that we cannot afford. Protecting the environment has a cost, the story goes and we will pay it in higher prices. Opponents of the EPA Clean Power Plan have made this type of claim, in some of its more extreme incarnations, central to their legal challenge in West Virginia v. EPA.

    According to a group of local chambers of commerce and manufacturing associations, the Clean Power Plan will cause “economic disaster”—largely due to higher electricity prices—in which “thousands of businesses” will “lay off workers or close their doors entirely.” Local Bus. Br. 23–24. In the words of the 60Plus Association, a Koch-Brothers-affiliated group that purports to represent seniors, the rule will cause people on fixed and low incomes to “suffer greatly” from “grinding, day-to-day deprivations.” Id. at 12–13. I will turn back to these arguments in a moment. But first, it is worth raising something important that the challengers and their amici completely ignore: the harms of climate change.

    Climate change is already damaging American consumers and businesses and it threatens massive future harm. By spurring more extreme weather events, climate change will cause trillions of dollars’ worth of damage to property and infrastructure. A 2014 analysis projects $525 billion in damage to coastal property alone, in just the next 15 years. The damage from extreme weather will, in turn, force businesses to raise prices and governments to raise taxes. Drought, floods and other weather events will raise the price of basic needs like food and water while lowering their quality. In addition to being poorer, we will be less healthy, burdened by more heat-related and food-, water- and insect-borne illnesses.

  • September 27, 2016
    Guest Post

    In February, the Supreme Court of the United States stayed implementation of the Clean Power Plan, which provides the EPA with its best chance to cut future greenhouse gas emissions. On Tuesday, Sept. 27, the United State Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit will hear oral arguments in a consolidated case, known as West Virginia, et. al. v. EPA. This case will determine whether it is within the EPA’s power to regulate air quality by setting strict standards for carbon emission. ACS invited experts to explore the issues that will be presented before the Court.

    by Michael Burger, Executive Director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law; Research Scholar and Lecturer-in-Law at Columbia Law School and Justin Gundlach, Climate Law Fellow at the Sabin Senter for Climate Change Law

    Anthropogenic climate change is causing material harm to American communities and the Supreme Court has foreclosed all but one legal basis for federal regulatory action to address the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions at its root. According to the Court’s decision in in AEP v. Connecticut, the Clean Air Act, which directs the Environmental Protection Agency to prevent air pollution from endangering public health or welfare, “displaces” common law remedies. EPA’s instructions under the Act as the Court has read it are, therefore, to address GHGs and to use the Clean Air Act to do so. To apply the Act’s requirements to existing power plants, the nation’s largest source of GHGs, EPA must interpret what is the “best system of emissions reduction” for that source category—for that is the key language in Clean Air Act section 111(d), which governs “standards of performance for existing sources.” EPA’s interpretation is embodied in the Clean Power Plan.

    We wrote an amicus brief on behalf of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National League of Cities and over 50 individual municipal governments to convey three key points to the court about climate change and the Clean Power Plan: one factual, one legal and one focused on what the court’s decision would mean for U.S. cities.

  • September 26, 2016
    Guest Post

    In February, the Supreme Court of the United States stayed implementation of the Clean Power Plan, which provides the EPA with its best chance to cut future greenhouse gas emissions. On Tuesday, Sept. 27, the United State Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit will hear oral arguments in a consolidated case, known as West Virginia, et. al. v. EPA. This case will determine whether it is within the EPA’s power to regulate air quality by setting strict standards for carbon emission. ACS invited experts to explore the issues that will be presented before the Court.

    by Tomás Carbonell, Director of Regulatory Policy and Senior Attorney at the Environmental Defense Fund

    Oral argument on the Clean Power Plan — the nation’s first limits on emissions of harmful climate pollution from fossil fuel power plants — will take place in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on September 27, 2016. As the court reviews the most significant step our country has taken to address the threat of climate change, the need for action to reduce climate-disrupting pollution has never been more urgent: Louisiana recently became the fifth state in the span of 12 months to suffer from a “1,000-year flood.” August 2016 marked the 16th consecutive month that set a global monthly high-temperature recorded. The Clean Power Plan, which will reduce carbon pollution from power plants to 32 percent below 2005 levels by 2030 and generate $54 billion per year in climate and health benefits, is essential to reduce these risks.

    During oral argument, the court will hear powerful legal arguments for upholding the Clean Power Plan. The rule is supported by a broad and diverse coalition that includes eighteen states and sixty municipalities across the country; power companies that own and operate more than ten percent of the nation’s generating capacity; leading businesses like Apple, Google, Mars and IKEA; public health and environmental organizations; consumer and ratepayer advocates; faith organizations; and many others. Numerous legal experts — including drafters of the Clean Air Act, former EPA Administrators who served under Presidents Nixon, Reagan and Bush and former state energy and environmental officials — have also affirmed the strong legal basis for the Clean Power Plan. These supporters understand that the Clean Power Plan is both a crucial step to address climate change and fully consistent with the law.

  • September 26, 2016
    Guest Post

    In February, the Supreme Court of the United States stayed implementation of the Clean Power Plan, which provides the EPA with its best chance to cut future greenhouse gas emissions. On Tuesday, Sept. 27, the United State Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit will hear oral arguments in a consolidated case, known as West Virginia, et. al. v. EPA. This case will determine whether it is within the EPA’s power to regulate air quality by setting strict standards for carbon emission. ACS invited experts to explore the issues that will be presented before the Court.

    by Patrick Parenteau, Professor of Law at Vermont Law School and Senior Counsel, Environmental and Natural Resources Law Clinic

    EPA did a fantastic job crafting the Clean Power Plan to meet the mandate of the Supreme Court in Mass v. EPA to regulate emissions from the largest sector of carbon pollution in the nation, using the precise statutory authority (i.e. section 111(d) identified by the Court in AEP v. Connecticut. The Department of Justice has thoroughly demolished the arguments accusing EPA of exceeding its authority, trampling the constitution and usurping state sovereignty. Eminent scholars like Dean Emeritus Richard Revesz and his colleagues at the Institute for Policy Integrity have shown through exacting analysis just how solid the legal foundation is for the Clean Power Plan. The full DC Circuit should have no trouble upholding it as an eminently reasonable and critically necessary response to the existential threat of climate disruption. As a not insignificant co-benefit it will also go a long way towards protecting public health from the many other pollutants emitted by the dirtiest coal plants around the country.

    But as Yogi Berra famously said “It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future.” There are many possible outcomes. The DC Circuit is not a monolith. Six of the ten active judges who will hear the argument were appointed by Democrats (four by Obama) and four by Republicans. That may give the government a bit of an advantage when it comes to affording Chevron deference on some of the closer questions of statutory interpretation but it is far from a rubber stamp. After all these are judges with intellectual integrity regardless of their political affiliation.

    As unlikely as it seems a decision invalidating the entire Clean Power Plan or even major parts of it such as the goal of increasing renewable energy by 28 percent by 2030, would deal a serious blow to the commitments made by the U.S. in the Paris Agreement which were instrumental in getting China on board and spurring greater action by India and other developing countries. After eight years of being AWOL in the international climate negotiations during the Bush Administration, the U.S.  is now seen as the major force leading the rest of the world by example towards higher ambitions for cutting emissions. Energy markets are moving rapidly in the direction of more efficient and cleaner energy systems. The International Energy Administration says that renewables are leading the world power market into the future. In the U.S., electricity demand is steadily decreasing as efficiency proves more cost effective than new generation. These trends are expected to continue with or without the Clean Power Plan.  

  • September 26, 2016
    Guest Post

    by Jeff Mandell, Senior Associate at Stafford Rosenbaum LLP in Madison, Wisconsin. Jeff is also the Chair of the newly formed ACS Madison Lawyer Chapter.

    Spend two days attending a participant-led conference about the ideas that should shape the future. That tempting invitation led me, a litigator in Madison, Wisconsin, to Washington, D.C. last week for Vox Conversations. The editorial team at Vox.com convened 150 invitees and asked us to raise and examine questions about how things could be different. It was just that open-ended and vague—how could things be different? Vox.com editor-in-chief Ezra Klein urged conference-goers to pursue and explore big ideas, without letting “the strictures of this political moment” constrain our discussions. My hope, as I tweeted out ahead of the conference, was that Vox Conversations would provide insightful discussions of policy—and maybe a little law. But Vox Conversations, like last summer’s ACS National Convention, reminded me that law and policy are rarely discrete spheres of inquiry but, ideally, intertwine with and inform one another.

    The conference discussions were all over the map and covered a tremendous swath of intellectual territory. There were conversations about the prospect of increased government surveillance and about beneficial government uses of big data. I hosted a conversation about how the proliferation of guns is changing our society and I participated in a fascinating discussion on whether America suffers from too much democracy. Much of the conference was strictly off-the-record (admittedly an interesting choice for a conference convened by a media company), with a stated goal of allowing greater space for participants to think out loud, to express incompletely theorized ideas and to change their minds in the midst of robust give-and-take.

    Among the on-the-record portions, I was particularly struck by Vox.com’s Matt Yglesias expanding upon his prediction that increasing ideological rigidity in our political parties will lead to persistent gridlock and, in turn, to a collapse of American constitutional democracy. Yglesias posits that our system of checks and balances, carefully calibrated for the world as the Framers understood it, is ill-equipped to handle our contemporary politics. Yglesias’ theory has a certain logical appeal, but I remain unconvinced, even after questioning the idea at the conference and continuing to turn it over in my mind for several days since.