The Climate Docket

WHAT WE COVER:

  • Liability Litigation
    • Baltimore Lawsuit
    • California Climate Lawsuits
    • Colorado Lawsuit
    • Mass. v. Exxon
    • New York City Lawsuit
    • Rhode Island Lawsuit
    • Other Suits
  • Access to Courts
    • Liability Waivers
    • State Legislation
  • Home
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

Powered by Genesis

You are here: Home / Featured / EPA Backs Away from Climate Regulation, Opens Door for Legal Challenges?
EPA Backs Away from Climate Regulation, Opens Door for Legal Challenges?

EPA Backs Away from Climate Regulation, Opens Door for Legal Challenges?

August 22, 2018 Filed Under: Featured

print
By Ucilia Wang

The Trump administration’s watered-down proposal to regulate power plant emissions will weaken protection of the environment and climate, but it could strengthen the legal arguments of those challenging the government and fossil fuel industry in court.

The Environmental Protection Agency proposed the rule on Tuesday to replace the Clean Power Plan, the Obama administration’s regulation to curb carbon pollution from power plants and compel states to promote renewable energy to meet emission reduction targets. Finalized in 2015, the Clean Power Plan was stayed by the Supreme Court and has never been implemented.

The Trump administration promised a more industry-friendly version and delivered it on Tuesday. Called the Affordable Clean Energy rule focuses narrowly on improving a power plant efficiency while easing pollution control requirements. The rule must go through the mandated comment period and will face immediate legal challenges.

“This is really shocking as a repeal of a signature climate protection,” said Sean Donohue, legal counsel for the Environmental Defense Fund.

That the administration is attempting to replace the Clean Power Plan instead of repealing it indicates the government is worried about defending its actions in court,  said Richard Revesz, director of the Institute for Policy Integrity at the New York University School of Law.

“The reason we are seeing this replacement rule is also because industry groups are concerned about litigation. They think a weak rule is better than no rule at all,” Revesz said.

The government is required by the Clean Air Act to regulate air pollution and the Supreme Court affirmed in Massachusetts v. EPA in 2007 that carbon dioxide emissions are included in that mandate.

The announcement of the new rule drew immediate threats of legal challenges from New York and other states. New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood said she will lead a coalition of 17 states, Washington D.C. and six cities and counties to challenge the proposal if it is adopted. The EPA is required to solicit public comments and hold a public hearing before finalizing the rule.

But the new plan could also be used to bolster the legal arguments in several different kinds of climate lawsuits. In the liability suits filed by more than a dozen communities across the country against the fossil fuel industry, the industry has argued that because the Clean Air Act gives the EPA jurisdiction over carbon emissions, the courts are not the appropriate place to seek climate remedies. So far, that argument has helped convince two federal judges to dismiss lawsuits by San Francisco, Oakland and New York City against major oil companies for their role in climate change.

With the EPA backing away from strong regulations, however, lawyers could argue that the courts would play a proper role in forcing the government to live up to its obligations. Donohue pointed out that the proposed rule would give states discretion in meeting weaker goals or exempt themselves altogether.

“There are serious questions about whether there will be any real regulatory requirements to reduce emissions, and that could help the argument that the federal government is essentially choosing not to do anything,” Donohue added.

Legal experts caution that there are case laws, such as American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut, which still pose significant hurdles to finding fossil fuel companies liable for public nuisance for contributing to climate change.  In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that the EPA, not the courts, can regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

“The weakening of federal rules to control greenhouse gas pollution should not impact those cases where the federal government may argue displacement of common law claims by the Clean Air Act. Legal arguments in those cases will rest upon other matters,” said Ryke Longest, environmental law and policy professor at Duke Law School.

More directly, the rule does seem to bolster the claims being pursued by 21 young people against the U.S. government for its role in climate change in  Juliana v. United States. The young plaintiffs have contended that the government has violated their constitutional rights to life, liberty and property by promoting fossil fuel development that drives climate change and for violating the public trust doctrine, which holds that the government is required to protect natural resources for the public benefit.

The case, which has survived intense challenges from the Department of Justice since its filing in 2015, including an unsuccessful preemptive appeal to the Supreme Court, is scheduled for trial in U.S. District Court in October..

“This new proposed rule doesn’t diminish the hurdles that the plaintiffs already have to overcome, but it does feed into their narratives, if we zoom out a little bit, that the federal government is failing to protect the future generation and the public trust,” said Michael R. Barsa, co-director of the environmental law concentration at the Northwestern Pritzker School of Law.

The EPA’s own cost and benefit analysis of the new rule would further reinforce the claim that the government isn’t doing enough. The proposal says it will cut carbon emissions from the power sector by up to 1.5 percent from the 2005 levels by 2030, but the Clean Power Plan would have reduced emissions by 32 percent during the same period.

The EPA surprised many by acknowledging that the new rulewill likely sicken and kill Americans: up to 1,630 premature deaths annually by 2030, along with more asthma cases and lost school and work days.

“I expect the government would argue in the Juliana case that the United States is taking action to protect the plaintiffs from climate change and cite the new rule. The hard part for the government lawyers is that the new rule is less protective than the rule that the Obama administration had promulgated,” Longest said.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • More
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)

Filed Under: Featured

Don't Miss a story
Subscribe 
We promise not to spam you. Unsubscribe at any time.
Invalid email address
Thanks for subscribing! Please check your email for further instructions.

Trackbacks

  1. EPA Backs Away from Climate Regulation, Opens Door for Legal Challenges? – Climate Change Resources says:
    August 23, 2018 at 4:35 am

    […] EPA Backs Away from Climate Regulation, Opens Door for Legal Challenges? […]

  2. Supreme Court Gives Children’s Climate Change Lawsuit Green Light » Clear View Post says:
    September 13, 2018 at 11:26 am

    […] Trump’s retreat from climate change mitigation could strengthen the legal argument in general in favor of court action by suggesting the federal government is abdicating its responsibility, according to legal experts cited in Climate Liability News. […]

Don't Miss a story
Subscribe 
We promise not to spam you. Unsubscribe at any time.
Invalid email address
Thanks for subscribing! Please check your email for further instructions.

Latest News

Justice Dept. to Argue on Side of Oil Companies in Supreme Court Hearing

By Karen Savage The acting solicitor general will be allowed time to argue in support of ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, BP and nearly two dozen other companies next week during oral arguments before … [Read More...]

Recent Posts

  • Will Amy Coney Barrett, Whose Father Was a Shell Attorney for Decades, Recuse from Climate Suit?
  • Justice Dept. to Argue on Side of Oil Companies in Supreme Court Hearing
  • Oil Companies Ask Supreme Court to Decide Jurisdiction of More Climate Cases
  • Climate Suits Grew in 2020, Could Clear Huge Hurdle in 2021

Most Popular

  • Will Amy Coney Barrett, Whose Father Was a Shell Attorney for Decades, Recuse from Climate Suit?
  • Hawaii Joins Trend: Recognizes Constitutional Right to Safe Climate and Environment
  • R.I. Wins Battle to Keep Climate Suit Vs. Big Oil in State Court
  • Carbon Majors Can Be Held Liable for Human Rights Violations, Philippines Commission Rules
  • As San Francisco, Oakland Press Climate Cases, They Pay Homage to Tiny Kivalina

Categories

  • Access to Courts
  • Baltimore Lawsuit
  • California Climate Lawsuits
  • Charleston, S.C. Lawsuit
  • Colorado Lawsuit
  • Connecticut Lawsuit
  • Delaware Lawsuit
  • Exxon Climate Investigation
  • Featured
  • Hoboken Lawsuit
  • International
  • Latest News
  • Liability Litigation
  • Liability Waivers
  • Mass. v. Exxon
  • Minnesota Lawsuit
  • New York City Lawsuit
  • Other Suits
  • Politics
  • Rhode Island Lawsuit
  • State Legislation
  • Uncategorized
  • Washington DC Lawsuit

Follow us

  • View climatedocket’s profile on Facebook
  • View climatedocket’s profile on Twitter

RSS

RSS Feed RSS - Posts

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.