West Virginia v EPA – Upending Administrative Law

Deck: 

The Congressional Review Act

Fortnightly Magazine - September 2022
This full article is only accessible by current license holders. Please login to view the full content.
Don't have a license yet? Click here to sign up for Public Utilities Fortnightly, and gain access to the entire Fortnightly article database online.

The Supreme Court recently issued an opinion holding as unlawful an Obama-era EPA rule (which never went into effect) regarding carbon dioxide emissions from coal plants. Under that EPA rule, "to implement the needed shift in generation to cleaner sources, an operator could reduce the regulated plant's own production of electricity, build or invest in a new or existing natural gas plant, wind farm, or solar installation, or purchase emission allowances or credits as part of a cap-and-trade regime."

In its opinion, the Supreme Court explicitly adopted a new principle — the "major question doctrine" — and held that in order for federal agencies to adopt rules to address "major questions," there must be "a clear statement" for a court to be able to conclude that Congress intended to delegate authority "of this breadth to regulate a fundamental sector of the economy." 

This new doctrine could have repercussions well beyond the regulation of coal-fired power plants, particularly because it is not at all clear what would be deemed a "major question" that would limit regulatory authority absent a "clear statement" in an agency's statutory authority.

This full article is only accessible by current license holders. Please login to view the full content.
Don't have a license yet? Click here to sign up for Public Utilities Fortnightly, and gain access to the entire Fortnightly article database online.