The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit is seeing a lot of love for the Clean Power Plan this week. Three amici curiae briefs were filed Thursday in support of the Environmental Protection Agency’s carbon emissions standard for existing coal-fired power plants, adding to four intervenors briefs filed Tuesday and the EPA’s own brief filed Monday.
The arguments in Thursday’s briefs are similar to those made earlier this week: the rule is achievable, framed in an effective manner, and builds on existing trends. “The targets are quite modest given strong positive trends in the power sector. While coal has dominated power production historically, natural gas prices have fallen steeply with the advent of hydraulic fracturing, making gas—not coal—the most economic fossil fuel choice in many markets,” according to one amici brief penned by a group of former state environmental and energy officials.
EPA’s rule, which requires states to develop action plans to meet federally set emissions reduction targets, is being challenged by a group of 156 petitioners comprised of states, utilities, fossil fuel companies, and trade and interest groups. The group marched to the courthouse as soon as the rule was open for challenge to file a lawsuit demanding it be overturned on the grounds that it represents a massive regulatory overreach by the agency. The anti-CPP petitioners filed their briefs in late February.
Two former EPA administrators also argued for the rule Thursday: William Ruckelshaus, who served as administrator twice, first under President Richard Nixon when the agency was established and later under President Ronald Reagan, and William Reilly, who served as administrator under President George H. W. Bush.
“The Clean Power Plan represents the very kind of pollution control program that amici curiae former EPA Administrators William D. Ruckelshaus and William K. Reilly endorsed during their service at EPA. The Plan is a pragmatic, flexible, and cost-effective pollution control program, which properly respects State sovereignty by affording States substantial authority and latitude to decide whether and how best to administer its provisions,” the brief says.
By filing as amicus curiae, these parties are not bound to the case as the intervenors are.
Petitioners and their intervenors will now have a chance to respond to the briefs from EPA and its intervenors by April 15, and final briefs are due April 22. Oral arguments are scheduled to begin June 2.
