In the News

The Methane Rule addresses a market failure to create enormous value for society. Although EPA calculates virtually all conceivable costs of the rule and calculates only one monetary benefit, it still finds that the monetary benefits exceed costs — by $48 billion.

Observers have said the lower court’s injunction could cause important near-term delays to EPA rules including a long-awaited update to heavy truck emissions rules and federal ozone control plans, though they say it is unlikely to entirely block a range of ongoing regulatory activities. “This [ruling] is a big deal,” said New York University’s Institute for Policy Integrity Director Richard Revesz in an interview with Inside EPA’s Climate Extra. But, there are “all kinds of scenarios” for how things play out.

A case argued at the Supreme Court this week—West Virginia v EPA—has potentially huge implications for regulating greenhouse gas emissions. NYU law professor Richard Revesz and Center for Biological Diversity attorney Jason Rylander join the podcast to explain.

Despite West Virginia's attempts to revise regulatory history in West Virginia v. EPA, a major Supreme Court case on the scope of EPA's ability to regulate greenhouse gases, the agency has long regulated air quality by relying on tools such as emissions trading and generation shifting, writes Dena Adler.

West Virginia and its allies are seeking an "advisory opinion" from the Supreme Court to affect the upcoming rulemaking, Richard Revesz, a professor at the New York University School of Law, said, noting the court doesn't have the authority to issue them. Echoing arguments made by Prelogar, Revesz said the Clean Power Plan is obsolete and would need to go through a rulemaking process before it could be resuscitated. The court should dismiss the case, he said.

“As the U.S. solicitor general explained, there’s currently no regulation in place that puts costs on any petitioner,” said Dena Adler, a research scholar at the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University’s School of Law who works on federal climate and energy policy. “The Clean Power Plan did not spring to life after the most recent decision in this case. Given the absence of any current regulation, it would make sense to dismiss the case as improvidently granted.”

While this case has been framed as a conflict between the environment and the power sector, it is in fact regulated entities that are coming out in support of EPA, said Max Sarinsky, senior attorney at the New York University Institute for Policy Integrity.

Today the Supreme Court hears oral arguments in the case of West Virginia v. EPA.  The case centers on the EPA’s ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions in the power sector. Dena Adler cautioned against reading too much into the oral arguments. However, she did say to note “any questions from justices regarding the appropriate scope of the major questions doctrine."

Jack Lienke, an attorney with the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University Law School, said it would be unusual for the court to issue a decision that would give EPA specific instructions about the kinds of emissions-reducing technologies it should tap in a future rule. “It would be very strange for the court to say, ‘Hey, EPA, here's some advice for you when you take another bite at this … certain strategies that we think are a good idea,’” he said. “The court doesn't give that sort of advice. The court waits until the agency makes a choice, and then, if someone challenges that choice as exceeding the bounds of the agency's authority, then the court weighs in.”

Petitioners have asked SCOTUS to expand the rarely-used "major questions doctrine" to limit EPA's capacity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. Dena Adler explains why their argument poses major problems.