{"id":12956,"date":"2016-03-31T12:48:54","date_gmt":"2016-03-31T17:48:54","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/?p=12956"},"modified":"2016-03-31T13:20:49","modified_gmt":"2016-03-31T18:20:49","slug":"edf-joins-broad-coalition-to-file-vigorous-defense-of-the-clean-power-plan","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/2016\/03\/31\/edf-joins-broad-coalition-to-file-vigorous-defense-of-the-clean-power-plan\/","title":{"rendered":"EDF Joins Broad Coalition to File Vigorous Defense of the Clean Power Plan"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"rp_scales_of_justice-300x280.png\"This week a broad coalition of public health and environmental organizations, including EDF,\u00a0 submitted a brief<\/a> in support of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency\u2019s (EPA) Clean Power Plan<\/a> to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.<\/p>\n

As required by the Clean Air Act, the Clean Power Plan establishes the first national limits on carbon dioxide from existing fossil-fuel fired power plants \u2013 the nation\u2019s single largest source of this harmful pollution. The Clean Power Plan provides eminently achievable targets<\/a> for carbon pollution reduction that phase in gradually from 2022 to 2030, and it offers states and power companies tremendous flexibility to determine how best to meet those targets.<\/p>\n

Unfortunately, opponents of climate progress have been waging a relentless litigation campaign to overturn these urgently-needed and reasonable standards \u2013 a campaign that began by filing lawsuits in multiple courts before EPA had even finalized<\/a> the Clean Power Plan.<\/p>\n

Now, the D.C. Circuit is poised to consider the legal merits of the Clean Power Plan \u2013 the first time any court has considered the case on its merits.<\/p>\n

The brief<\/a> filed by the environmental and public health coalition (including EDF), which represents millions of Americans around the country, adds to EPA\u2019s own powerful defense<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Here, we provide a brief overview of the major points in\u00a0our coalition\u2019s brief.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Urgent Need to Address Carbon Pollution<\/strong><\/p>\n

The opening paragraph\u00a0of the brief emphasizes the critical stakes in this litigation \u2014and the urgent need to address harmful pollution from existing power plants that is threatening public health and welfare:<\/p>\n

Fossil fuel-fired power plants are the country\u2019s largest sources of carbon dioxide (CO2) pollution, exceeding even the \u201cenormous quantity\u201d emitted by the transportation sector \u2026 That pollution is destabilizing the climate that supports human civilization and all life, posing a dire threat to public health and welfare. Higher temperatures worsen deadly heatwaves, promote the spread of insect-borne diseases, intensify storms and flooding that cause death and injury and enormous property damage, and deepen droughts that threaten crops and water supplies. These harmful impacts are already occurring in the United States, and they disproportionately affect children, the elderly, low-income populations, communities of color, and indigenous populations worldwide. (Brief<\/em><\/a>, page 1)<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The Clean Power Plan is Firmly Anchored in Our Nation\u2019s Clean Air Laws<\/strong><\/p>\n

Our coalition’s brief underscores recent Supreme Court precedent that unanimously\u00a0found that the Clean Air Act \u201cspeaks directly\u201d to the carbon pollution from existing power plants, and \u201cdelegate[s] to EPA the decision whether and how to regulate\u201d those emissions. (Brief<\/em><\/a>, page 1, quoting <\/em>American Electric Power v. Connecticut, 131 S. Ct. 2527, 2530, 2538 (2011)<\/em> )\u00a0 <\/em><\/p>\n

The brief also explains that the Clean Power Plan is a reasonable exercise of this authority, establishing \u201creadily achievable\u201d emission reduction targets that build on current industry trends and are based on the techniques the industry most commonly uses to reduce carbon pollution:<\/p>\n

The [Clean Power Plan] is highly cost-effective, well-suited to the regulated industry, and accommodating of industry and state requests for compliance flexibility \u2026 the Rule reflects the predominant approach to reducing power plant CO2 emissions employed by companies and states across the country. The record shows that industry trends predating the Rule are driving cleaner electricity generation, moderating electricity demand, and reducing use of old, uneconomical coal plants\u2026The Rule provides six years\u2019 lead time before emission reduction requirements begin gradually phasing in, and the pace of CO2 reductions the Rule requires by 2030 is in line with the pace actually achieved by the industry in recent years. These readily achievable reductions are not too much to ask of an industry that contributes disproportionately to a grave public hazard. (<\/em>Brief<\/em><\/a>, pages 1 and 2)<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

And the brief demonstrates that the Clean Power Plan faithfully follows the language of the Clean Air Act, and draws on well-established regulatory approaches that have long been applied to the power sector and other industries:<\/p>\n

The Rule is in keeping with a long line of power sector regulations that take account of the unique characteristics of the industry and its pollution \u2026 The Rule achieves its pollution-reducing objectives at reasonable cost using flexible measures that are already widely used in the power industry. EPA has employed such measures in many regulations both to set emission targets and to ease compliance. (<\/em>Brief<\/em><\/a>, pages 2 and 3)<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Lastly, the brief takes apart opponents\u2019 arguments that EPA is prohibited<\/em> from regulating carbon dioxide emissions under section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act \u2014 the same provision that the Supreme Court unanimously found \u201cspeaks directly\u201d to such regulation:<\/p>\n

After lengthy attacks on how EPA applied [section 111(d)], Petitioners contend the agency may not use that section at all<\/em>, because EPA previously regulated different pollutants \u2014 mercury and other hazardous air pollutants (\u201cHAPs\u201d) \u2014 under a different section of the Act \u2026 This bizarre proposition is like exempting restaurants from food handling requirements because they are subject to the fire code. The Clean Air Act does not work that way. (<\/em>Brief<\/em><\/a>, page 20)<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The Broad Coalition Supporting the Clean Power Plan<\/strong><\/p>\n

The\u00a0coalition brief was submitted to the court by the American Lung Association, the Center for Biological Diversity, the Clean Air Council, the Clean Air Task Force, Clean Wisconsin, the Conservation Law Foundation,\u00a0Earthjustice, Environmental Defense Fund, Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club, the Ohio Environmental Council, the Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, the West Virginia Highlands Conservancy, Coal River Mountain Watch, the Kanawha Forest Coalition, the Mon Valley\u00a0Clean\u00a0Air Coalition, and Keepers of the Mountains Foundation.<\/p>\n

In addition to the health and environmental\u00a0brief, other parties supporting EPA \u2013 including a coalition of 18 States<\/a> as well as Chicago, New York City, Philadelphia, South Miami and others; a large group of power companies;<\/a> and three advanced energy trade associations<\/a> — also submitted their briefs in defense of the Clean Power Plan.\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

What\u2019s Next in the Clean Power Plan Litigation<\/strong><\/p>\n

Today and tomorrow, an extensive group of Clean Power Plan supporters will file amicus, or \u201cfriend of the court,\u201d briefs.<\/p>\n

A few examples of these amici include:<\/p>\n