West Virginia v. EPA

On April 25, 2025, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals granted the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s motion asking the court to continue holding in abeyance the challenges to the final rule establishing new greenhouse gas emissions standards and guidelines for new and existing fossil fuel-fired electric generating units. The final rule also revoked the first Trump administration’s Affordable Clean Energy Rule. EPA said it had decided to initiate a new rulemaking process to reassess the rule and that it intended to issue a proposed reconsideration rule in spring 2025 and a final rule by December 2025.

–

–

–

On July 19, 2024, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals denied motions requesting a stay of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2024 final rule establishing greenhouse gas emissions standards and guidelines for power plants. The D.C. Circuit concluded that the petitioners did not satisfy the “stringent requirements” for stay pending review. The court found that the petitioners did not show that they were likely to succeed on their claims that EPA acted arbitrarily and capriciously in determining that carbon capture and other emission control technologies were adequately demonstrated and that specific degrees of emissions mitigation were achievable. Citing the Supreme Court’s 2022 <a href="https://climatecasechart.com/case/american-lung-association-v-epa/">opinion</a> rejecting—under the “major questions” doctrine—EPA’s earlier attempt to regulate emissions from existing power plants in the Clean Power Plan, the D.C. Circuit found that the 2024 final rule did not implicate the major questions doctrine “because EPA has claimed only the power to ‘set emissions limits … based on the application of measures that would reduce pollution by causing the regulated source to operate more cleanly[,]’ a type of conduct that falls well within EPA’s bailiwick.” The D.C. Circuit also found that the rule’s compliance deadlines in 2030 and 2032—“years after this case will be resolved”—weighed against finding irreparable harm. The D.C. Circuit asked the parties to submit a joint proposal for expedited briefing.

–

–

–

Edison Electric Institute, which filed a petition for review challenging the rule, also sought to intervene in support of certain aspects of the rule, including EPA’s authority to subcategorize EGUs and some of the rule’s compliance options and flexibilities.

On May 17, 2024, the D.C. Circuit denied the 25 states’ request for an administrative stay and set a briefing schedule for stay motions. Briefing of the eight stay motions was scheduled to be completed on June 18.

Twenty states, the California Air Resources Board, the District of Columbia, and four cities asked for leave to intervene in support of the final rule.

Five environmental and public health organizations filed a motion for leave to intervene in support of respondents.

Arguments on the merits in the stay motions included challenges to EPA’s conclusion that carbon capture and sequestration was “adequately demonstrated” and “achievable.” Other merits arguments previewed in the stay motions included assertions that the final rule infringes on states’ discretion under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act; that the rule violates the major questions doctrine; and that EPA cannot regulate existing coal plants under Section 111(d) because it already regulates them under Section 112.