0022
[ST: 1] [ED: 100000] [REL: 16-1]
Composed: Wed Dec 16 13:05:08 EST 2015
XPP 8.4C.1 SP #3 SC_00052 nllp 1898 [PW=468pt PD=702pt TW=360pt TD=580pt]
VER: [SC_00052-Local:07 Dec 15 19:12][MX-SECNDARY: 11 Dec 15 08:32][TT-: 23 Sep 11 07:01 loc=usa unit=01898-ch1601]
0
PRATT ’S ENERGY LAW REPORT
unaffected aspects of the regulation stand.3 In fact, even states that are challenging the
rule in court, such as Arkansas, are holding meetings to discuss compliance options,
while environmentally-progressive states, such as Washington, are working quickly to
have ï¬nal compliance plans ready by the 2016 deadline. As such, companies and
investors in industries that may be affected by the CPP would be wise to study the
complexities of the regulation and engage with policy makers soon to ensure that
their voices are heard as CPP implementation plans are designed over the course of
the next several months.
3
See, e.g., Michigan v. EPA, 135 S. Ct.
2699 (U.S. 2015) (holding that EPA failed to adequately
consider costs in promulgating regulations restricting emissions of certain pollutants from power plants,
remanding the case to the lower court for additional consideration, but not vacating the rule).
22
.