Press Releases

Today in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, oral arguments were heard in two cases challenging the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s so-called “Clean Power Plan.”  These separate though related cases argue that the EPA is acting outside its authority in seeking to regulate existing power plants under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act because the EPA already regulates them under Section 112.  The challengers include 15 states.  Unfortunately, the Commonwealth of Virginia is not one of the challengers.

Arguing today on behalf of petitioners was Harvard Law School Professor Laurence Tribe, who testified before Congressman Morgan Griffith (R-VA) and his colleagues on the Energy and Commerce Committee:  “EPA is attempting an unconstitutional trifecta: usurping the prerogatives of the States, Congress, and the Federal Courts – all at once.  Much is up for grabs in this complex area.  But burning the Constitution of the United States – about which I care deeply – cannot be part of our national energy policy…”  Video of Griffith questioning Tribe can be found here on Griffith’s YouTube page.

Griffith said the following regarding the lawsuits against the EPA’s “Clean Power Plan:”

“On June 19, 2014 and again just a couple of days ago, I expressed to Janet McCabe, EPA Acting Administrator for Air and Radiation, my belief that her agency is improperly interpreting vital statutory language and exceeding its statutory authority with its so-called ‘Clean Power Plan.’  And today, the EPA argued among other things that it is premature to consider the court cases that would determine whether the EPA has the necessary underlying authority for its proposed plan.”

“In light of the fact that this rule, which Ms. McCabe indicates should be final this summer, is based on EPA’s new interpretation of Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act, it would seem that EPA would want this issue resolved as quickly as possible.  However, today they argued to delay that legal question until after the rule is final.  In my opinion, the only purpose that serves is to close down coal mines, shutter coal-powered power plants and electric generation units, and cost many coal miners in the Ninth District alone their jobs.”

“I would submit that the courts must have their say on the legality of the so-called ‘Clean Power Plan’ before states are required to spend a significant amount of money and resources on its implementation.  I believe the EPA’s arguments are very weak in regards to Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act.  After amendments were made to the Clean Air Act, EPA during the Clinton Administration interpreted the changes to mean they could not regulate electric generating units under both Sections 112 and 111(d).  In fact, in New Jersey v. EPA*, which was decided in 2008, the judge found based on EPA’s own interpretation that EPA had conceded this point.”

“I commend West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, Professor Tribe, and all those working on these important lawsuits.  As these cases proceed, I will continue working to advance the Ratepayer Protection Act, which among other things would allow for completion of judicial review of any final rule before states would be required to comply.”

Information on the Ratepayer Protection Act, authored by Griffith and Energy and Power Subcommittee Chairman Ed Whitfield (R-KY) can be found here on the Energy and Commerce Committee’s website.  Video of Griffith questioning McCabe as is mentioned above can be found here on Griffith’s YouTube page: June 2014, April 2015.

* New Jersey v. EPA, 517 F.3d 574 (D.C. Cir. 2008)

###