W13 A Look at Future Regulation, NRC and Otherwise, in Light of West Virginia v. EPA

In June 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court decided West Virginia v. EPA, ruling that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) lacked the authority to limit carbon emissions from new sources through a generation shifting approach under the Clean Power Plan. In its 6–3 holding, the Supreme Court for the first time explicitly endorsed the "major questions doctrine," requiring that, for an "extraordinary case" having "economic and political significance," an agency's assertion of regulatory authority must be based on "clear congressional authorization." Legal experts have conflicting opinions on what this means for the future of Federal regulation and the NRC. What does this ruling portend for attempts by agencies such as the NRC to deal with novel issues, particularly when the agency's asserted basis for its regulatory authority rests on longstanding provisions of its organic statute?

• William Froehlich, Administrative Judge, ASLBP/NRC
• Paul Bollwerk, III, Administrative Judge, ASLBP/NRC

   

• Introductory Remarks
  William Froehlich, Administrative Judge, ASLBP/NRC and Paul Bollwerk, III, Administrative Judge, ASLBP/NRC
• Kristin Hickman, McKnight Presidential Professor in Law, University of Minnesota Law School
• Developments in the Federal Courts Concerning the Major Questions Doctrine
  Andrew Averbach, NRC Solicitor, OGC/NRC
• Jeffrey Lubbers, Professor, American University

• Twana Ellis, Program Analyst, Adjudicatory Support and Tech Staff, ASLBP/NRC e-mail: Twana.Ellis@nrc.gov