On April 12, EPA filed a response in support of its motion to hold the CPP litigation in abeyance. In this response, EPA argues that “it is not the proper role of this Court to try to shape a potential forthcoming rulemaking through an advisory opinion, particularly where doing so would intrude upon EPA’s authority to interpret and implement a statute it administers and upon a new Administration’s authority to change legal and policy positions.” EPA also responds to allegations that its abeyance motion is untimely, stating that issues concerning the CPP are “unfit for further judicial proceedings.” And EPA argues that the Supreme Court’s stay of the CPP did not somehow remove the D.C. Circuit’s authority to manage the docket, as environmental groups and state opponents intervened in the cases had alleged.
The information contained in Considering the Grid is provided for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. Spiegel & McDiarmid expressly disclaims all liability in respect to actions taken or not taken based on any or all the contents of this site. Continue reading