Skip to main content

Defending the Clean Power Plan

The National Wind Technology Center in Colorado.

The National Wind Technology Center in Colorado.

Dennis Schroeder / NREL

What's at Stake

The Clean Power Plan is a crucial step to curb the carbon pollution from power plants that drives dangerous climate change.

Overview

Nine leading public health and environmental organizations have stepped up to defend the landmark Clean Power Plan in the federal appeals court in Washington, saying the plan is a crucial step to curb the carbon pollution from power plants that drives dangerous climate change.

The groups intervened in lawsuits against the Environmental Protection Agency’s climate plan addressing new and existing power plants, countering a group of coal companies, polluting power generators and allied state attorneys general that sued to block the first-ever standards limiting power plant carbon pollution.

The intervenor groups include the American Lung Association, Center for Biological Diversity, Clean Air Council, Clean Wisconsin, Conservation Law Foundation, Environmental Defense Fund, Natural Resources Defense Council, Ohio Environmental Council and Sierra Club. Attorneys from Earthjustice and Clean Air Task Force are co-counsel.

The final Clean Power Plan was published in the Federal Register on October 23, 2015, launching a 60-day period to file lawsuits over the plan. In addition to the health and environmental groups, motions are expected by at least 15 state attorneys general, a group of utilities, cities and others united in support of limiting power plant carbon pollution.

Case Updates

May 15, 2017 | Legal Document

Supplemental Brief Of Public Health And Environmental Organization Respondent-Intervenors (State of West Virginia v. EPA)

Public Health and Environmental Respondent-Intervenors hereby respond to the Court’s April 28, 2017, order requesting briefs on whether these consolidated cases concerning the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan, 80 Fed. Reg. 64,662 (Oct. 23, 2015), should be “remanded to the agency rather than held in abeyance.” ECF No. 1673071.

May 15, 2017 | Legal Document

Supplemental Brief Of Public Health And Environmental Organization Respondent-Intervenors (State of North Dakota v. EPA)

Public Health and Environmental Respondent-Intervenors respectfully submit this supplemental brief in response to this Court’s order of April 28, 2017, ECF No. 1673072, in which the Court requested briefing on whether it should remand, rather than hold in abeyance, the consolidated cases challenging the Environmental Protection Agency’s Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New, Modified, and Reconstructed Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units (“New Source Rule”), 80 Fed. Reg. 64,510 (Oct. 23, 2015).