Your Source for Energy Jobs & Industry News
The U.S. Supreme Court has said that rules requiring power plants burning fossil fuels to reduce emissions of toxic substances can stand, dealing a blow to several Republican-led states and […]
The post Supreme Court Clears Way for Limits on Power Plant Mercury, Methane Emissions appeared first on POWER Magazine.
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has declined to rehear a case that challenges nuclear subsidies in Illinois, effectively dealing a blow to a group of competitive generators, which have fought the measure for several years.
In an order issued on October 9, the appellate court said its full judicial panel had voted to deny a September 29–filed petition from the Electric Power Supply Association (EPSA), a national trade association representing independent power producers and marketers, that urged it to rehear a case challenging the state’s zero emissions credit (ZEC) program under the Illinois Future Energy Jobs Act. In its petition, the group argued that the court erred or overlooked significant aspects of its case when the court issuedits final judgment on September 13.
The court’s decision, which essentially left the door open for states to subsidize nuclear generation, was hailed as a victory for Exelon Corp., which lobbied for the measure to protect its financially flailing nuclear assets.…
One of the witnesses testifying before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works on June 9 believes states and regulated entities will be granted additional time to comply with the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Clean Power Plan (CPP), if the rule is ultimately found to be lawful.
Currently, the U.S. Supreme Court has granted a stay of the rule, which means that the CPP, although finalized, has no legal effect. A stay of an administrative action maintains the status quo during the time that the court considers the legality of the action. Any and all obligations are effectively void and neither states nor regulated entities can be penalized for refusing to comply with any requirement or deadline in the rule.
According to Allison Wood, partner in the law firm Hunton & Williams LLP and one of the witnesses at the hearing (Figure 1), stays of federal regulations are very rarely granted by any court. She said the Supreme Court only grants a stay when there is a reasonable probability that four justices would consider the issue one on which they would grant review, there is a fair prospect that a majority of the court would vote to strike down the rule at issue, and there is a likelihood that irreparable harm would result without a stay.…