In the News

The court is considering West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, a case brought by 18 Republican attorneys general, backed by some of the nation’s largest coal companies, who want to sharply limit, if not eliminate, the agency’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas pollution from power plants. “This is a serious threat to regulations,” said Richard Revesz, who teaches environmental law at New York University and filed a legal brief in the case in support of the administration.

But Max Sarinsky, a professor at the New York University School of Law, said accounting for future damages from emissions is key to the administration attempt to weigh climate impacts of actions such as the pending oil and gas lease sale. “These numbers are important,” Sarinsky said. “They provide a useful tool for the government to develop cost effective policies that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”

Jack Lienke discussed the history of West Virginia v. EPA, whether SCOTUS should have taken it at all, the legal issues involved, and the possible rulings we might expect from the court, ranging from bad to terrible.

Rachel Rothschild, legal fellow at the Institute for Policy Integrity, joins Kate and Melissa to recap oral argument in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency. They also recap cases about prescription drugs, tribal casinos, outpatient dialysis, and what happens when a state wants to enforce a law that’s no longer in effect.

Max Sarinsky, a senior attorney with the Institute for Policy Integrity (IPI) at New York University, argues “the district court’s injunction does not require the Department of Energy to scrap its regulations or return to the drawing board. Instead, if this injunction is not quickly lifted, the agency should look at each regulation on a case-by-case basis and determine how to proceed.”

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.