Special Bonus: What West Virginia v EPA Means for Acting on Climate Change
Mar 3, 2022
auto_awesome
Supreme Court case West Virginia v EPA has implications for regulating greenhouse gas emissions, Clean Power Plan discussed, potential impacts on EPA's authority and power sector, exploration of major questions and non-delegation doctrines, debate on whether Congress has delegated power to EPA.
The West Virginia v EPA case explores the major questions doctrine and its potential implications for agency rulemaking and addressing pressing issues like climate change.
The Supreme Court's decision in the West Virginia v EPA case may impact not just EPA's authority over greenhouse gas emissions in the power sector, but also future regulations in the power sector and constraints on federal agencies' ability to address various health, environmental, and consumer issues.
Deep dives
The Supreme Court hears oral arguments in the West Virginia versus EPA case
This special episode discusses the recent Supreme Court oral arguments in the West Virginia versus EPA case. The case, which began as a dispute over the Clean Power Plan, examines whether the Supreme Court should rule on a policy that was never implemented. The EPA argued that the case should be dismissed, but the Court showed interest by asking many questions. While there is optimism that previous rulings on EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gases will not be overturned, the discussion of the major questions doctrine is concerning, as it has been increasingly used by conservative justices to limit agency authority. The episode features experts who provide insights on the case and its potential implications.
The major questions doctrine and its impact on agency rulemaking
The podcast explains the major questions doctrine, a rarely invoked concept that has gained prominence in recent years. It requires Congress to clearly authorize an agency to take action on matters of vast economic or political significance. The doctrine has been used to challenge various regulations, including the OSHA vaccine and testing mandate and the eviction moratorium. In the West Virginia versus EPA case, the major questions doctrine is central to the debate on whether the EPA has the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions broadly, beyond just power plants. The doctrine's expanded use raises concerns about limiting agency rulemaking and the potential consequences for addressing pressing issues like health, environment, and climate change.
Possible impact on EPA's authority to regulate power sector emissions
The discussion highlights that while the Supreme Court's decision in the West Virginia versus EPA case may primarily affect EPA's authority over greenhouse gas emissions in the power sector, it has broader implications. The court's focus on the functioning of the electrical grid and considerations related to balancing electricity supply and demand suggest a potential impact on future regulations in the power sector. Furthermore, the episode suggests that the court's approach to major questions doctrine in this case could set a precedent for future cases, leading to constraints on federal agencies' ability to address various health, environmental, and consumer issues. Additionally, the episode raises concerns about a possible revival of the non-delegation doctrine, which could further limit the authority of regulatory agencies.
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 us to explain.