The Lean Power Plan Research Essay

According to the Lean Power Plan

According to the Lean Power Plan, carbon dioxide emissions from current power plants must be reduced by 32%. It was a landmark strategy meant to slow down global warming. The Obama Administration had this as a potential project. The D.C. Circuit judges heard formal arguments in September 2016 regarding the legality of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) implementation of the plan. Twenty-eight states and a number of significant industry organizations opposed the initiative on the grounds that EPA lacked the authority to implement the regulation. They claimed that the regulation would forcibly shutter coal-fired power plants. The coal-fired power plants that heavily polluted the environment are to be replaced by renewable energy sources (Pierce)

Texas Public Policy Foundation partnered with Pacific Legal Foundation

Texas Public Policy Foundation together with Pacific Legal Foundation partnered to file a case (State of West Virginia, et al v. Environmental Protection Agency) against the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan. The EPA promulgated the plan under section 111 (d) of the Clean Air Act. The case was filed for three reasons:

First reason: Regulation under Section 111

First, the petitioners stated that the proposed Act does not permit EPA to regulate emissions from stationery sources under Section 111, when such emissions are still regulated under Section 112.

Second reason: Regulation under Section 108

Second, if EPA has to proceed with the regulation, it must be under Section 108 and not under Section 111. While, the third reason was the accusation that EPA failed to consider the effects of the rule before they went into action. In addition, the Clean Power Act is unconstitutional and does not authorize EPA to regulate the system of power generation within each state. It actually violates the Tenth Amendment.

Court request to hold the case

When Trump administration came in, the court was requested to hold the case in April 2017, while a new plan was sought out. This was with the aim of reversing the rule by rendering it less useful. In 2016, the Supreme Court said that states did not have to comply until the issues following the litigation were resolved. Federal court on 21st April 2017 said that it would halt consideration of the initiative in honor of Mr. Trump’s request (Pierce).

Advocates for climate action protest against Trump’s action

Many advocates for climate action have come across to protest against Trump’s action by terming it a concerted assault.

Lessons learnt

First, it is clear that political sustainability is a central concern for any regulatory program designed to operate to be effective. The rule was designed to be effective as from 2022, which means a certain administration must remain in power for quite a long time in order to successfully implement its long term plans. However, this can be difficult in American politics.

Secondly, policymaking without the support of the Congress in America’s constitutional system can be hard to implement. If Congress does not give support to a certain program, there are high chances that it will also lack the support it needs from different political leaders.

Another lesson learnt is that the legal foundation is unsteady. The court’s decision was majorly influenced by personal interest rather than following the right decision making process. The EPA defendants were not given the chance by the court to defend themselves. The Supreme Court did not get to the details of the Clean Air Act as required by law.

Work Cited

Pierce, Richard J. “The Effects of President Trump’s Reversal of President Obama’s Climate Policies are Great Exaggerated.” (2017),

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/28/climate/clean-power-plan-global-warming.html?_r=0 accessed on 28 April, 2017.