{"id":9966,"date":"2015-04-13T12:42:22","date_gmt":"2015-04-13T17:42:22","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/?p=9966"},"modified":"2015-04-13T12:42:22","modified_gmt":"2015-04-13T17:42:22","slug":"clean-power-plan-litigation-an-end-run-around-the-clean-air-act-and-the-democratic-process","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/2015\/04\/13\/clean-power-plan-litigation-an-end-run-around-the-clean-air-act-and-the-democratic-process\/","title":{"rendered":"Clean Power Plan Litigation: An End Run around the Clean Air Act and the Democratic Process"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>This Thursday, April 16, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit will hear oral argument in three related cases \u2014 <em>West Virginia v. EPA<\/em> (No. 14-1146) and<em> In re Murray Energy Corporation <\/em>(No. 14-1112, 14-1151)<em> \u2014 <\/em>involving challenges to EPA\u2019s proposed Clean Power Plan, which will establish the nation\u2019s first limits on carbon pollution from existing fossil fuel-fired power plants.<img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignright\" src=\"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/wp-content\/blogs.dir\/7\/files\/2015\/02\/Gavel_iStock000003633182Medium1-300x199.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"300\" height=\"199\" \/><\/p>\n<p>EDF is a party to the cases, and will be in court on Thursday.<\/p>\n<p>These cases have attracted media attention in large part because these are the first legal challenges to a high-profile national rulemaking that will establish critical public health protections for the nation\u2019s largest source of greenhouse gases.<\/p>\n<p>But these cases are also drawing notice because they involve highly unorthodox attempts to stop an <strong>ongoing<\/strong> rulemaking process. EPA is still considering more than four million public comments received between June and December 2014 on its proposed standards, and the Agency is not expected to issue a final rule until this summer.<\/p>\n<p><strong>From a legal perspective, the petitioners\u2019 case is fatally flawed on both procedural and substantive grounds. <\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Turning first to the procedural issues:<\/p>\n<p>The timing of these legal challenges blatantly disregards the most basic principles of federal administrative law.<\/p>\n<p>Although the three petitions before the D.C. Circuit have different procedural postures, all of them seek to block or overturn EPA\u2019s <strong>proposed <\/strong>carbon pollution standards. But under federal administrative law, standards developed by agencies such as EPA must go through a transparent and participatory process in which proposed standards are published, the public has an opportunity to comment on those standards, and agencies then issue final standards that respond to those comments. Both the Clean Air Act and the Administrative Procedure Act clearly provide that legal challenges can only be filed <strong>after<\/strong> this process is complete, and the agency has taken final action.<\/p>\n<p>This long-standing rule against premature legal challenges serves a number of compelling purposes:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>It prevents parties from doing an \u201cend run\u201d around the public comment process.<\/li>\n<li>It gives administrative agencies the opportunity to ensure that final rules are firmly grounded in law and fact.<\/li>\n<li>It ensures that reviewing courts have before them the agency\u2019s full and definitive decisions and analyses.<\/li>\n<li>It protects courts and agencies from wasting valuable time litigating proposals that may change as a result of public comments.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Those purposes clearly apply here. EPA is months away from taking final action on the Clean Power Plan \u2014 and is still weighing millions of public comments filed on almost every aspect of the proposed rule, including the same legal issues raised by the D.C. Circuit petitioners (who have simultaneously filed voluminous comments with EPA making the very arguments they are making in court).<\/p>\n<p>The petitioners attempt to short-circuit this careful, deliberative rulemaking process is radical and would \u2013 if successful \u2013 open the door to endless litigation over agency proposals.\u00a0Petitioners have pointed to no case in which the D.C. Circuit or any other federal court has ever entertained such an anticipatory challenge to an administrative rulemaking. Indeed, in the last two years, the federal courts have twice dismissed similar lawsuits that were filed against EPA\u2019s proposed carbon pollution standards for new power plants &#8212; <em>Las Brisas Energy Center LLC v. EPA, <\/em> 12-1248 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 13, 2012) and <em>Nebraska v. EPA, <\/em>No. 4:14-CV-3006 (D. Neb. Oct. 6, 2014). On procedural grounds alone, the petitioners\u2019 case should similarly be dismissed.<\/p>\n<p>The petitioners\u2019 substantive claim \u2014 that EPA is prohibited from regulating carbon dioxide from the power sector under section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act \u2014 is equally unfounded.<\/p>\n<p>Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act requires EPA to regulate harmful pollution from existing sources, where that pollution is not regulated under other provisions of the Clean Air Act relating to national ambient air quality standards (sections 108-110) and hazardous air pollutants (section 112). For more than forty years, section 111(d) has been understood to serve a vital gap-filling role in the Clean Air Act \u2013 ensuring the protection of human health and welfare from harmful air pollution that is not addressed under other key Clean Air Act programs.<\/p>\n<p>Because carbon dioxide from the power sector is not regulated under section 108 or 112, EPA has logically proposed that it must be regulated under section 111(d). This conclusion not only follows from a long-standing interpretation of section 111(d), it also is consistent with the Supreme Court\u2019s 2011 decision in <em>American Electric Power v. Connecticut<\/em> \u2013 which stated that section 111(d) \u201cspeaks directly\u201d to the problem of carbon pollution from existing power plants, and held that EPA\u2019s authority to regulate carbon pollution under section 111(d) displaces federal common law.<\/p>\n<p>Indeed, attorneys for some of the nation\u2019s largest power companies <strong>specifically supported this interpretation<\/strong> at oral argument before the Supreme Court, and urged the \u201ccomprehensive\u201d coverage of the Clean Air Act, including section 111(d)\u2019s applicability to carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants, as a reason why federal courts should not recognize a non-statutory remedy for power plant carbon pollution under the federal common law.<\/p>\n<p>The petitioners nonetheless contend that EPA is categorically forbidden from regulating carbon dioxide from the power sector under section 111(d) because EPA has already issued standards for <strong>different<\/strong> pollutants (mercury, other toxic metals, and acid gases) from the power sector under a <strong>different<\/strong> section of the Clean Air Act.<\/p>\n<p>As EPA explained in <a href=\"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/wp-content\/blogs.dir\/7\/files\/2015\/02\/EPA-brief-in-West-Virginia-v.-EPA.pdf\">its brief in <em>West Virginia<\/em><\/a>, this theory amounts to a \u201cpick your poison\u201d approach to the Clean Air Act \u2013 arbitrarily limiting EPA to regulating <strong>either<\/strong> pollutants like mercury under section 112 or pollutants like carbon dioxide under section 111(d) for any given source, but not both.<\/p>\n<p>Such a result would be completely out of step with the Clean Air Act, which consistently recognizes that different air pollutants pose different risks to the public, so that controlling one pollutant from a source does not eliminate the need to control other pollutants. The petitioners\u2019 theory would radically alter the structure of the Clean Air Act, transforming what is now a seamless regulatory framework into one with potential gaping loopholes.<\/p>\n<p>Neither the text nor the structure and history of the Clean Air Act support these claims. The petitioners\u2019 theory rests entirely on a strained interpretation of a technical amendment to section 111(d) that the House of Representatives passed as part of the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments. But as EPA and other parties describe in more detail in their briefs to the DC Circuit, the text of the House amendment has multiple interpretations \u2013 and is most reasonably read to support the traditional \u201cgap-filling\u201d role of section 111(d) and EPA\u2019s authority to regulate carbon dioxide from the power sector.<\/p>\n<p>Moreover, the petitioners call on the court to disregard a contemporaneous Senate amendment to section 111(d) that \u2014 as even they admit \u2014 <strong>unambiguously<\/strong> preserves EPA\u2019s authority to regulate carbon pollution.<\/p>\n<p>The Senate amendment, like its House counterpart, was passed by both houses of Congress and signed into law by the President. It is the law of the land and cannot simply be read out of the Clean Air Act.<\/p>\n<p>The petitioners\u2019 theory also represents bad statutory interpretation because it would dramatically change the structure of the Clean Air Act in a way that Congress could never have intended \u2013 making it difficult or even impossible for EPA to protect the public from harmful pollutants from the dozens of industrial source categories whose emissions of hazardous air pollutants are regulated under section 112. In all of the extensive debate, committee reports, and other legislative history that led up to the enactment of the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments, there is not a shred of evidence that Congress intended to create loopholes in section 111(d) as the petitioners claim.<\/p>\n<p>Faced with this reality, the petitioners insist \u2013 without any supporting evidence \u2014 that Congress wanted to avoid \u201cdouble regulation\u201d of source categories under sections 111(d) and 112. But it is not \u201cdouble regulation\u201d for EPA to regulate different health-harming pollutants from the same source category under different provisions of the Clean Air Act. In fact, the Clean Air Act has always permitted and even required such regulation. Many facilities in the power sector, for example, are currently regulated under multiple Clean Air Act programs addressing different air pollution problems that are associated with a variety of adverse health effects.<\/p>\n<p>Further, the 1990 amendments include a provision stating that standards under section 112 must not be \u201cinterpreted, construed or applied to diminish or replace\u201d more stringent requirements under section 111. This is a strong indication that Congress intended for section 112 to work seamlessly with, not displace, section 111(d).<\/p>\n<p>EPA\u2019s proposed interpretation of section 111(d) also has a long and bipartisan history \u2013 further supporting the reasonableness of the agency\u2019s view and underscoring the bizarre and opportunistic nature of the petitioners\u2019 theories.<\/p>\n<p>As documented in a compelling <a href=\"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/wp-content\/blogs.dir\/7\/files\/2015\/02\/Policy-Integrity-brief.pdf\">brief filed by NYU\u2019s Institute for Policy Integrity<\/a>, EPA has adopted the view that section 111(d) applies to any pollutant not regulated under section 112 or section 108 in multiple rulemakings since 1990 \u2014 not just in the Obama Administration, but also the George W. Bush Administration, the Clinton Administration, and the Administration of George H.W. Bush, who actually signed the 1990 amendments.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Ultimately, the petitioner\u2019s flimsy substantive claims only underscore the wisdom of the procedural bar against premature challenges to agency proposed rules. <\/strong><\/p>\n<p>EPA undoubtedly possesses the authority to limit carbon pollution from existing power plants under section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act. That&#8217;s good news for the families and communities that are afflicted by mercury and carbon pollution from fossil fuel power plants \u2014 the nation&#8217;s single largest source of both health-harming contaminants.<\/p>\n<p>Congress did not intend for our children to have to &#8220;pick their poisons,&#8221; but instead created a seamless framework \u2013 which Republican and Democratic administrations alike have long carried out \u2014 to safeguard our health and our children&#8217;s health from <strong>all<\/strong> harmful air pollution.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>This Thursday, April 16, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit will hear oral argument in three related cases \u2014 West Virginia v. EPA (No. 14-1146) and In re Murray Energy Corporation (No. 14-1112, 14-1151) \u2014 involving challenges to EPA\u2019s proposed Clean Power Plan, which will establish the &#8230;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":11203,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[4017,4025,4024,20,44],"tags":[],"coauthors":[],"class_list":["post-9966","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-clean-air-act","category-carbon-pollution-standards","category-epa-litgation","category-news","category-policy"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Clean Power Plan Litigation: An End Run around the Clean Air Act and the Democratic Process  - Climate 411<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/2015\/04\/13\/clean-power-plan-litigation-an-end-run-around-the-clean-air-act-and-the-democratic-process\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Clean Power Plan Litigation: An End Run around the Clean Air Act and the Democratic Process  - Climate 411\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"This Thursday, April 16, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit will hear oral argument in three related cases \u2014 West Virginia v. EPA (No. 14-1146) and In re Murray Energy Corporation (No. 14-1112, 14-1151) \u2014 involving challenges to EPA\u2019s proposed Clean Power Plan, which will establish the ...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/2015\/04\/13\/clean-power-plan-litigation-an-end-run-around-the-clean-air-act-and-the-democratic-process\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Climate 411\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2015-04-13T17:42:22+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"http:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/wp-content\/blogs.dir\/7\/files\/2015\/02\/Gavel_iStock000003633182Medium1-300x199.jpg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Tomas Carbonell\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Tomas Carbonell\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.edf.org\\\/climate411\\\/2015\\\/04\\\/13\\\/clean-power-plan-litigation-an-end-run-around-the-clean-air-act-and-the-democratic-process\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.edf.org\\\/climate411\\\/2015\\\/04\\\/13\\\/clean-power-plan-litigation-an-end-run-around-the-clean-air-act-and-the-democratic-process\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Tomas Carbonell\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.edf.org\\\/climate411\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/6b9bfc457c4b271af275f7437e4b1c12\"},\"headline\":\"Clean Power Plan Litigation: An End Run around the Clean Air Act and the Democratic Process\",\"datePublished\":\"2015-04-13T17:42:22+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.edf.org\\\/climate411\\\/2015\\\/04\\\/13\\\/clean-power-plan-litigation-an-end-run-around-the-clean-air-act-and-the-democratic-process\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1657,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.edf.org\\\/climate411\\\/2015\\\/04\\\/13\\\/clean-power-plan-litigation-an-end-run-around-the-clean-air-act-and-the-democratic-process\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"http:\\\/\\\/blogs.edf.org\\\/climate411\\\/wp-content\\\/blogs.dir\\\/7\\\/files\\\/2015\\\/02\\\/Gavel_iStock000003633182Medium1-300x199.jpg\",\"articleSection\":[\"Clean Air Act\",\"Clean Power Plan\",\"EPA litgation\",\"News\",\"Policy\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.edf.org\\\/climate411\\\/2015\\\/04\\\/13\\\/clean-power-plan-litigation-an-end-run-around-the-clean-air-act-and-the-democratic-process\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.edf.org\\\/climate411\\\/2015\\\/04\\\/13\\\/clean-power-plan-litigation-an-end-run-around-the-clean-air-act-and-the-democratic-process\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.edf.org\\\/climate411\\\/2015\\\/04\\\/13\\\/clean-power-plan-litigation-an-end-run-around-the-clean-air-act-and-the-democratic-process\\\/\",\"name\":\"Clean Power Plan Litigation: An End Run around the Clean Air Act and the Democratic Process - Climate 411\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.edf.org\\\/climate411\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.edf.org\\\/climate411\\\/2015\\\/04\\\/13\\\/clean-power-plan-litigation-an-end-run-around-the-clean-air-act-and-the-democratic-process\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.edf.org\\\/climate411\\\/2015\\\/04\\\/13\\\/clean-power-plan-litigation-an-end-run-around-the-clean-air-act-and-the-democratic-process\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"http:\\\/\\\/blogs.edf.org\\\/climate411\\\/wp-content\\\/blogs.dir\\\/7\\\/files\\\/2015\\\/02\\\/Gavel_iStock000003633182Medium1-300x199.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2015-04-13T17:42:22+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.edf.org\\\/climate411\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/6b9bfc457c4b271af275f7437e4b1c12\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.edf.org\\\/climate411\\\/2015\\\/04\\\/13\\\/clean-power-plan-litigation-an-end-run-around-the-clean-air-act-and-the-democratic-process\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.edf.org\\\/climate411\\\/2015\\\/04\\\/13\\\/clean-power-plan-litigation-an-end-run-around-the-clean-air-act-and-the-democratic-process\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.edf.org\\\/climate411\\\/2015\\\/04\\\/13\\\/clean-power-plan-litigation-an-end-run-around-the-clean-air-act-and-the-democratic-process\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"http:\\\/\\\/blogs.edf.org\\\/climate411\\\/wp-content\\\/blogs.dir\\\/7\\\/files\\\/2015\\\/02\\\/Gavel_iStock000003633182Medium1-300x199.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"http:\\\/\\\/blogs.edf.org\\\/climate411\\\/wp-content\\\/blogs.dir\\\/7\\\/files\\\/2015\\\/02\\\/Gavel_iStock000003633182Medium1-300x199.jpg\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.edf.org\\\/climate411\\\/2015\\\/04\\\/13\\\/clean-power-plan-litigation-an-end-run-around-the-clean-air-act-and-the-democratic-process\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.edf.org\\\/climate411\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Clean Power Plan Litigation: An End Run around the Clean Air Act and the Democratic Process\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.edf.org\\\/climate411\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.edf.org\\\/climate411\\\/\",\"name\":\"Climate 411\",\"description\":\"Blogging the science and policy of global warming\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.edf.org\\\/climate411\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.edf.org\\\/climate411\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/6b9bfc457c4b271af275f7437e4b1c12\",\"name\":\"Tomas Carbonell\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/757ad13ce505c4441f5d5efa76fd49382b40eea5d7fa8fd62631ca504e20ad4b?s=96&d=mm&r=gebbb023379aaf3dc80d02ea00bce7668\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/757ad13ce505c4441f5d5efa76fd49382b40eea5d7fa8fd62631ca504e20ad4b?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/757ad13ce505c4441f5d5efa76fd49382b40eea5d7fa8fd62631ca504e20ad4b?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Tomas Carbonell\"},\"description\":\"Attorney Tom\u00e1s is a member of EDF\u2019s Climate and Air Legal and Regulatory team, where he engages in regulatory, litigation, and policy advocacy directed at mitigating climate change and reducing emissions of harmful pollutants that threaten public health and welfare.\",\"sameAs\":[\"http:\\\/\\\/www.edf.org\\\/people\\\/tomas-carbonell\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.edf.org\\\/climate411\\\/author\\\/tcarbonell\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Clean Power Plan Litigation: An End Run around the Clean Air Act and the Democratic Process  - Climate 411","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/2015\/04\/13\/clean-power-plan-litigation-an-end-run-around-the-clean-air-act-and-the-democratic-process\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Clean Power Plan Litigation: An End Run around the Clean Air Act and the Democratic Process  - Climate 411","og_description":"This Thursday, April 16, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit will hear oral argument in three related cases \u2014 West Virginia v. EPA (No. 14-1146) and In re Murray Energy Corporation (No. 14-1112, 14-1151) \u2014 involving challenges to EPA\u2019s proposed Clean Power Plan, which will establish the ...","og_url":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/2015\/04\/13\/clean-power-plan-litigation-an-end-run-around-the-clean-air-act-and-the-democratic-process\/","og_site_name":"Climate 411","article_published_time":"2015-04-13T17:42:22+00:00","og_image":[{"url":"http:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/wp-content\/blogs.dir\/7\/files\/2015\/02\/Gavel_iStock000003633182Medium1-300x199.jpg","type":"","width":"","height":""}],"author":"Tomas Carbonell","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Tomas Carbonell","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/2015\/04\/13\/clean-power-plan-litigation-an-end-run-around-the-clean-air-act-and-the-democratic-process\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/2015\/04\/13\/clean-power-plan-litigation-an-end-run-around-the-clean-air-act-and-the-democratic-process\/"},"author":{"name":"Tomas Carbonell","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/#\/schema\/person\/6b9bfc457c4b271af275f7437e4b1c12"},"headline":"Clean Power Plan Litigation: An End Run around the Clean Air Act and the Democratic Process","datePublished":"2015-04-13T17:42:22+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/2015\/04\/13\/clean-power-plan-litigation-an-end-run-around-the-clean-air-act-and-the-democratic-process\/"},"wordCount":1657,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/2015\/04\/13\/clean-power-plan-litigation-an-end-run-around-the-clean-air-act-and-the-democratic-process\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"http:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/wp-content\/blogs.dir\/7\/files\/2015\/02\/Gavel_iStock000003633182Medium1-300x199.jpg","articleSection":["Clean Air Act","Clean Power Plan","EPA litgation","News","Policy"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/2015\/04\/13\/clean-power-plan-litigation-an-end-run-around-the-clean-air-act-and-the-democratic-process\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/2015\/04\/13\/clean-power-plan-litigation-an-end-run-around-the-clean-air-act-and-the-democratic-process\/","url":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/2015\/04\/13\/clean-power-plan-litigation-an-end-run-around-the-clean-air-act-and-the-democratic-process\/","name":"Clean Power Plan Litigation: An End Run around the Clean Air Act and the Democratic Process - Climate 411","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/2015\/04\/13\/clean-power-plan-litigation-an-end-run-around-the-clean-air-act-and-the-democratic-process\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/2015\/04\/13\/clean-power-plan-litigation-an-end-run-around-the-clean-air-act-and-the-democratic-process\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"http:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/wp-content\/blogs.dir\/7\/files\/2015\/02\/Gavel_iStock000003633182Medium1-300x199.jpg","datePublished":"2015-04-13T17:42:22+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/#\/schema\/person\/6b9bfc457c4b271af275f7437e4b1c12"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/2015\/04\/13\/clean-power-plan-litigation-an-end-run-around-the-clean-air-act-and-the-democratic-process\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/2015\/04\/13\/clean-power-plan-litigation-an-end-run-around-the-clean-air-act-and-the-democratic-process\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/2015\/04\/13\/clean-power-plan-litigation-an-end-run-around-the-clean-air-act-and-the-democratic-process\/#primaryimage","url":"http:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/wp-content\/blogs.dir\/7\/files\/2015\/02\/Gavel_iStock000003633182Medium1-300x199.jpg","contentUrl":"http:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/wp-content\/blogs.dir\/7\/files\/2015\/02\/Gavel_iStock000003633182Medium1-300x199.jpg"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/2015\/04\/13\/clean-power-plan-litigation-an-end-run-around-the-clean-air-act-and-the-democratic-process\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Clean Power Plan Litigation: An End Run around the Clean Air Act and the Democratic Process"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/#website","url":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/","name":"Climate 411","description":"Blogging the science and policy of global warming","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/#\/schema\/person\/6b9bfc457c4b271af275f7437e4b1c12","name":"Tomas Carbonell","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/757ad13ce505c4441f5d5efa76fd49382b40eea5d7fa8fd62631ca504e20ad4b?s=96&d=mm&r=gebbb023379aaf3dc80d02ea00bce7668","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/757ad13ce505c4441f5d5efa76fd49382b40eea5d7fa8fd62631ca504e20ad4b?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/757ad13ce505c4441f5d5efa76fd49382b40eea5d7fa8fd62631ca504e20ad4b?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Tomas Carbonell"},"description":"Attorney Tom\u00e1s is a member of EDF\u2019s Climate and Air Legal and Regulatory team, where he engages in regulatory, litigation, and policy advocacy directed at mitigating climate change and reducing emissions of harmful pollutants that threaten public health and welfare.","sameAs":["http:\/\/www.edf.org\/people\/tomas-carbonell"],"url":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/author\/tcarbonell\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9966","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/11203"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=9966"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9966\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9966"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9966"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9966"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=9966"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}