“Former President Trump’s Administration put the CPP under review, removed its funding and passed legislation to undermine it,” Power Technology adds. SCOTUS enacted a stay on the CPP in 2016. Opposers often say that state governments should decide emissions limits, not federal agencies.” “Led by West Virginia politicians, the legal case said that the Plan gave the EPA massive power to reshape the U.S. “Soon after, 18 of the 50 joined a legal challenge against the emissions limits,” says Power Technology. Case backgroundĪuthority to set power plant GHG emissions limits was initially provided by the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan (CPP) to establish “flexible and achievable standards to reduce carbon dioxide emissions” that included “carbon pollution reduction goals for power plants and states to develop tailored implementation plans to meet those goals. The 6–3 decision ruled that it is Congress, not the EPA, that has the authority to create cap-and-trade regulations systems to limit GHG emissions from existing sources and transition away from fossil fuel energy to clean energy. EPA was whether Congress constitutionally authorized the EPA under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) to “issue significant rules including those capable of reshaping the nation’s electric grids and unilaterally decarbonizing virtually any sector of the economy – without any limits on what the agency can require so long as it considers cost, nonair impacts and energy requirements?” The question in the case West Virginia v. The decision is a heavy blow to the Biden administration in its quest to transition the United States to clean energy and a net-zero carbon future.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |