By a vote of 5 to 4 late Tuesday, the United States Supreme Court issued a stay of implementation of the Clean Power Plan (CPP) until pending legal challenges to the CPP are resolved. The Court's order effectively puts on hold federal regulations designed to significantly reduce carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants by 2030 until all appeals presently before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (DC Circuit) as well as any subsequent appeals to the Supreme Court are decided.
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito supported the stay. Dissenting from this decision were Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
Until the Supreme Court ultimately decides on the merits or refuses to become involved after the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia rules, the EPA won't be able to enforce a September 6, 2016 deadline for states to submit proposed plans to the EPA for review. Per the CPP, these plans must demonstrate how the states will achieve emissions reduction targets under the CPP. Additional deadlines that the stay potentially places in jeopardy include the submission of final plans to the EPA in 2018, as well as the 2022 start date for implementation.
The Supreme Court's brief order was succinct. It did not elaborate on the Court's reasoning behind the granting of the stay. Factors considered by the Court included the likelihood that states and utilities opposing the CPP would ultimately succeed on the merits of their claims and whether denying the request for a stay would cause irreparable harm to states and utilities appealing the CPP while all legal challenges play out. According to the U.S. Solicitor General's brief on behalf of the EPA in opposition to the stay, the Supreme Court has never before granted a request to stay a regulation of general applicability without prior review by a federal appeals court.
With the stay in place, attention now shifts back to the DC Circuit, where there is an expedited schedule for briefing and oral argument on the CPP. Initial briefs are due April 15, 2016, and oral argument is set for June 2, 2016.
Please feel free to contact any of the attorneys listed here should you have any questions.
Jennifer Galiette will be a speaker at a New England Women in Energy and the Environment (NEWIEE) event hosted on campus at UMass Amherst.
Florence Davis co-wrote an article entitled "Taming the Duck--Distributed Energy Resource Solutions to Renewable Energy Integration," for Bloomberg BNA's Daily Environment Report.
On January 30, Jed Davis will speak at The Knowledge Group Webcast, "Best Strategies in Protecting Your Firm Against Hackers: What Hackers Can and Cannot Do?"
On September 22 and 23, Dave Doot, Tom Havens and Florence Davis will participate at Law Seminars International's 13th Annual Comprehensive Conference on Energy in the Northeast in Boston.
Day Pitney Alert
Joe Fagan was quoted in an article, "For rebuffed Jordan Cove LNG, pipeline was the stumbling block at FERC," in S&P Global Market Intelligence.
Jeff Clopeck was quoted in an article, "Cautious optimism seen as equity crowdfunding begins," in Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly.
Harold Blinderman was quoted in an article, "Coal Co.'s Win Won't Diminish EPA's Regulatory Clout," in Law360. In the article, he discusses the significance of the case, Murray Energy Corporation et al v. Administrator of Environmental Protection Agency, in which the federal District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia granted summary judgment to Murray Energy.
Joe Fagan was quoted in an article, "Pipeline Fights May Determine Scope Of Climate Reviews," in Law360. The article is about how an increase in legal challenges by environmental groups claiming that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission must examine the climate change impacts of increased natural gas drilling before approving pipelines could help define the boundaries of a landmark 2004 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that limited the scope of federal environmental reviews to actions within an agency's authority.
John McLafferty was quoted in an article,"New pay equity law offers fertile ground for litigation," in Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly.