Loading
Energy
10 min read
Areas of Expertise :
Climate Change, Regulatory Compliance, Power Plant, Environmental, Energy
Published Date:
Last Modified Date:
Jurisdiction:
Federal. Supreme Court
In West Virginia v. EPA, No. 20-1530, decided on June 30, 2022, the Supreme Court reversed the D.C. Circuit and held that Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act did not give EPA authority to set power-sector emissions caps based on nationwide “generation shifting.” The ruling addressed the 2015 Clean Power Plan, which relied on shifting electricity generation from coal-fired plants to natural gas and renewable sources as part of the best system of emission reduction, or BSER. The Court applied the major questions doctrine and found that EPA needed clear congressional authorization before adopting a regulatory program with broad sector-wide effects. The opinion reviewed the history of the Clean Power Plan, the Supreme Court’s 2016 stay, EPA’s 2019 repeal of the plan, and the replacement Affordable Clean Energy Rule. The Court concluded that EPA lacked clear statutory authority to base the BSER on generation shifting that would restructure power generation across the national grid. The case was remanded after the Court limited EPA’s use of Section 111(d) for that type of power-sector regulation.
Congressional Research Service analysis describes the procedural path of the case, including the D.C. Circuit’s vacatur of the Affordable Clean Energy Rule and the repeal of the Clean Power Plan, followed by Supreme Court review. The analysis also summarizes the Court’s reliance on the major questions doctrine to narrow EPA’s interpretation of Section 111(d). For climate governance, the decision did not remove EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions from power plants under the Clean Air Act. Instead, it rejected EPA’s use of grid-wide generation shifting as the BSER under Section 111(d). Later EPA rulemaking, including the 2024 power-plant greenhouse-gas standards, EPA’s June 2025 proposed repeal, and the May 2026 OMB review of the final Carbon Pollution Standards Repeal action, shows that West Virginia v. EPA remains central to Clean Air Act rulemaking and related litigation. Any later or replacement rule must be grounded in statutory authority, source-specific emission-control methods, technical feasibility, and an administrative record capable of withstanding judicial review.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published the final Clean Power Plan in the Federal Register under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act. The rule addressed CO₂ emissions from existing fossil fuel-fired power plants by identifying the “best system of emission reduction,” or BSER. EPA’s approach included generation shifting from coal-fired electricity to natural gas and renewable sources. The rule’s building blocks went beyond source-specific equipment or operational upgrades, and EPA analyses projected major reductions in coal generation by 2030 under the Clean Power Plan.
The Supreme Court stayed the Clean Power Plan before any ruling on the merits, preventing the rule from taking effect while legal challenges proceeded. The stay kept the existing regulatory status in place during appellate review and paused implementation of the federal emissions guidelines for existing power plants. Because the order did not decide the merits, questions about EPA’s authority under Section 111(d) remained open for later proceedings.
EPA concluded that the Clean Power Plan exceeded the agency’s authority under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act. The agency repealed the Clean Power Plan and replaced it with the Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) Rule, which focused on heat-rate improvements at individual power plants. This source-specific approach moved away from grid-wide generation shifting and narrowed the federal framework for regulating power-sector greenhouse gas emissions.
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals vacated both the Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) Rule and EPA’s repeal of the Clean Power Plan. The court rejected EPA’s interpretation that emission controls under Section 111(d) had to be limited to measures applied only at individual power plants and remanded the matter to the agency. The court later partially stayed its mandate as to the Clean Power Plan repeal to avoid reinstating the prior rule during EPA’s remand rulemaking. The decision renewed litigation over EPA’s authority to regulate power-sector emissions under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act.
The Supreme Court heard consolidated challenges to the D.C. Circuit’s decision. The arguments centered on whether Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act allowed EPA to require generation shifting across the power sector. The justices examined statutory text, federalism concerns, and the major questions doctrine in the context of national climate regulation.
The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that Congress had not clearly authorized EPA to set emissions caps based on generation shifting under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act. Applying the major questions doctrine, the Court required clear congressional authorization for regulatory action with broad economic and political consequences. The ruling did not bar EPA from regulating greenhouse-gas emissions from power plants, but it limited EPA’s ability to base Section 111(d) standards on nationwide generation shifting. Future rules would need to rely on statutory authority and emission-control measures that fit more closely within the Clean Air Act.
EPA issued final greenhouse-gas standards and emission guidelines for fossil fuel-fired power plants under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act. The rule addressed new, modified, reconstructed, and existing electric generating units and replaced the Affordable Clean Energy Rule framework. The rule followed West Virginia v. EPA and reflected EPA’s effort to regulate power-sector greenhouse-gas emissions without relying on the Clean Power Plan’s nationwide generation-shifting approach.
EPA proposed to repeal greenhouse-gas emissions standards for fossil fuel-fired power plants under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act. The proposal placed EPA’s post-West Virginia v. EPA power-sector rulemaking back into active regulatory review. The proposed repeal also reinforced that the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision continued to affect how EPA, states, regulated entities, and courts evaluate federal climate authority under the Clean Air Act.
The Office of Management and Budget received EPA’s final Carbon Pollution Standards Repeal action for regulatory review. The submission did not publish or complete a final repeal rule, but it marked a step from proposal toward possible final agency action. The review also showed that West Virginia v. EPA continued to affect later Clean Air Act rulemaking over power-sector greenhouse-gas regulation.
Court:
Supreme Court of the United States
Case Name:
West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency
Clean Air Act
Climate
Environmental Protection Agency EPA
Air Pollution
Carbon dioxide
Environmental Compliance
Regulatory Issues
Energy industry
Clean Energy
Energy economics
In West Virginia v. EPA, No. 20-1530, decided on June 30, 2022, the Supreme Court reversed the D.C. Circuit and held that Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act did not give EPA authority to set power-sector emissions caps based on nationwide “generation shifting.” The ruling addressed the 2015 Clean Power Plan, which relied on shifting electricity generation from coal-fired plants to natural gas and renewable sources as part of the best system of emission reduction, or BSER. The Court applied the major questions doctrine and found that EPA needed clear congressional authorization before adopting a regulatory program with broad sector-wide effects. The opinion reviewed the history of the Clean Power Plan, the Supreme Court’s 2016 stay, EPA’s 2019 repeal of the plan, and the replacement Affordable Clean Energy Rule. The Court concluded that EPA lacked clear statutory authority to base the BSER on generation shifting that would restructure power generation across the national grid. The case was remanded after the Court limited EPA’s use of Section 111(d) for that type of power-sector regulation.
Congressional Research Service analysis describes the procedural path of the case, including the D.C. Circuit’s vacatur of the Affordable Clean Energy Rule and the repeal of the Clean Power Plan, followed by Supreme Court review. The analysis also summarizes the Court’s reliance on the major questions doctrine to narrow EPA’s interpretation of Section 111(d). For climate governance, the decision did not remove EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions from power plants under the Clean Air Act. Instead, it rejected EPA’s use of grid-wide generation shifting as the BSER under Section 111(d). Later EPA rulemaking, including the 2024 power-plant greenhouse-gas standards, EPA’s June 2025 proposed repeal, and the May 2026 OMB review of the final Carbon Pollution Standards Repeal action, shows that West Virginia v. EPA remains central to Clean Air Act rulemaking and related litigation. Any later or replacement rule must be grounded in statutory authority, source-specific emission-control methods, technical feasibility, and an administrative record capable of withstanding judicial review.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published the final Clean Power Plan in the Federal Register under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act. The rule addressed CO₂ emissions from existing fossil fuel-fired power plants by identifying the “best system of emission reduction,” or BSER. EPA’s approach included generation shifting from coal-fired electricity to natural gas and renewable sources. The rule’s building blocks went beyond source-specific equipment or operational upgrades, and EPA analyses projected major reductions in coal generation by 2030 under the Clean Power Plan.
The Supreme Court stayed the Clean Power Plan before any ruling on the merits, preventing the rule from taking effect while legal challenges proceeded. The stay kept the existing regulatory status in place during appellate review and paused implementation of the federal emissions guidelines for existing power plants. Because the order did not decide the merits, questions about EPA’s authority under Section 111(d) remained open for later proceedings.
EPA concluded that the Clean Power Plan exceeded the agency’s authority under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act. The agency repealed the Clean Power Plan and replaced it with the Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) Rule, which focused on heat-rate improvements at individual power plants. This source-specific approach moved away from grid-wide generation shifting and narrowed the federal framework for regulating power-sector greenhouse gas emissions.
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals vacated both the Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) Rule and EPA’s repeal of the Clean Power Plan. The court rejected EPA’s interpretation that emission controls under Section 111(d) had to be limited to measures applied only at individual power plants and remanded the matter to the agency. The court later partially stayed its mandate as to the Clean Power Plan repeal to avoid reinstating the prior rule during EPA’s remand rulemaking. The decision renewed litigation over EPA’s authority to regulate power-sector emissions under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act.
The Supreme Court heard consolidated challenges to the D.C. Circuit’s decision. The arguments centered on whether Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act allowed EPA to require generation shifting across the power sector. The justices examined statutory text, federalism concerns, and the major questions doctrine in the context of national climate regulation.
The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that Congress had not clearly authorized EPA to set emissions caps based on generation shifting under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act. Applying the major questions doctrine, the Court required clear congressional authorization for regulatory action with broad economic and political consequences. The ruling did not bar EPA from regulating greenhouse-gas emissions from power plants, but it limited EPA’s ability to base Section 111(d) standards on nationwide generation shifting. Future rules would need to rely on statutory authority and emission-control measures that fit more closely within the Clean Air Act.
EPA issued final greenhouse-gas standards and emission guidelines for fossil fuel-fired power plants under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act. The rule addressed new, modified, reconstructed, and existing electric generating units and replaced the Affordable Clean Energy Rule framework. The rule followed West Virginia v. EPA and reflected EPA’s effort to regulate power-sector greenhouse-gas emissions without relying on the Clean Power Plan’s nationwide generation-shifting approach.
EPA proposed to repeal greenhouse-gas emissions standards for fossil fuel-fired power plants under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act. The proposal placed EPA’s post-West Virginia v. EPA power-sector rulemaking back into active regulatory review. The proposed repeal also reinforced that the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision continued to affect how EPA, states, regulated entities, and courts evaluate federal climate authority under the Clean Air Act.
The Office of Management and Budget received EPA’s final Carbon Pollution Standards Repeal action for regulatory review. The submission did not publish or complete a final repeal rule, but it marked a step from proposal toward possible final agency action. The review also showed that West Virginia v. EPA continued to affect later Clean Air Act rulemaking over power-sector greenhouse-gas regulation.
Climate Expert Witness
Climate science and emissions experts are often engaged in Clean Air Act and power-sector emissions cases to explain greenhouse gas data, emission trends, and the scientific basis for climate-related regulatory decisions. They may review emissions inventories, test modeling assumptions, and explain how different control measures could affect projected CO₂ reductions.
Regulatory Compliance Expert Witness
Regulatory compliance experts may assist in environmental rulemaking disputes by evaluating how agency actions align with statutory authority, rulemaking procedures, and regulated-entity obligations. Their work may involve reviewing agency records, assessing compliance frameworks, and explaining how environmental rules are applied across regulated industries.
Power Plant Engineering Expert Witness
Power plant engineering experts are often engaged in Clean Air Act and power-sector emissions disputes to explain how electric-generation systems operate and how emission-reduction measures may affect plant performance. They may evaluate combustion efficiency, heat-rate improvements, equipment limits, plant operations, and the practical limits of proposed control measures.
Clean Air Act Expert Witness
Clean Air Act experts may be involved in environmental rulemaking disputes involving EPA authority, emission standards, administrative records, and regulatory procedures. Their analysis may address statutory provisions, agency rulemaking records, and how federal air-quality requirements apply to regulated sources.
Understand the Reach and Limits of Agency Power Under the Major Questions Doctrine
Attorneys should recognize that West Virginia v. EPA requires clear congressional authorization when an agency regulates issues with broad economic or political consequences. The ruling affects how courts review agency discretion under the Clean Air Act and other environmental statutes. Legal teams should examine whether the statute clearly supports the agency action before relying on broad regulatory interpretations involving climate or energy policy.
Align Statutory Interpretation with Congressional Intent in Climate-Related Rulemaking
The decision confirmed that courts will closely review whether regulatory programs stay within the authority Congress delegated, especially when those programs affect national climate and energy systems. Counsel advising agencies, regulated entities, or states should review statutory text, legislative history, and the limits of provisions such as Section 111(d). Strong statutory grounding can help defend rulemaking against claims that an agency exceeded its authority.
Use Technical Evidence and Expert Analysis Carefully in Environmental Litigation
Because the case focused on statutory authority, BSER interpretation, and generation shifting, legal teams should connect technical evidence directly to the regulatory question before the court. Expert analysis from climate science, power engineering, and regulatory compliance fields can help explain whether proposed emission-control measures fit within the “best system of emission reduction.” This type of analysis can support arguments in Clean Air Act disputes involving complex climate and energy systems.
Prepare for Future Climate Rules and Related Litigation
The ruling does not remove EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions, but it limits how that authority may be used under Section 111(d). Later EPA rulemaking, including the 2024 power-plant greenhouse-gas standards, EPA’s June 2025 proposed repeal, and the May 2026 OMB review of the final Carbon Pollution Standards Repeal action, shows that West Virginia v. EPA continues to affect Clean Air Act climate regulation and related litigation. Attorneys representing agencies, industries, or states should evaluate later or replacement rules by reviewing statutory authority, source-specific control measures, technical feasibility, and the administrative record supporting EPA’s reasoning.
Build a Strong Administrative Record for Judicial Review
Counsel should make sure the administrative record documents the technical basis, economic effects, and environmental reasoning behind regulatory choices. A detailed record is central to defending agency decisions under judicial review, especially in climate-related cases involving the major questions doctrine. Clear documentation of evidence, assumptions, and agency reasoning can reduce exposure to procedural and substantive challenges.
West Virginia v. EPA resolved the dispute over EPA’s 2015 Clean Power Plan and its reliance on Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act to set power-sector carbon dioxide limits through generation shifting. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the D.C. Circuit’s judgment, holding that Congress had not clearly authorized EPA to treat nationwide generation shifting as the “best system of emission reduction” for existing power plants. The ruling limited EPA’s use of Section 111(d) for regulatory action with broad economic and political consequences, but it did not end EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions from power plants under the Clean Air Act. Later EPA rulemaking, including the 2024 power-plant greenhouse-gas standards, EPA’s June 2025 proposed repeal, and the May 2026 OMB review of the final Carbon Pollution Standards Repeal action, shows that the decision continues to affect Clean Air Act climate regulation and related litigation. Later or replacement federal climate rules for the power sector must rely on statutory authority, source-specific emission-control measures, administrative record support, and reasoning capable of withstanding judicial review.
What does “best system of emission reduction” mean in West Virginia v. EPA?
The “best system of emission reduction,” or BSER, is the method EPA uses under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act to set emission standards for certain pollution sources. In West Virginia v. EPA, the dispute centered on whether BSER could include nationwide generation shifting across the power grid. The Supreme Court held that Congress had not clearly authorized EPA to use Section 111(d) in that manner.
What did the Supreme Court decide in West Virginia v. EPA?
The Supreme Court held that EPA exceeded its statutory authority when it relied on the Clean Power Plan to set emissions caps based on generation shifting across the power sector. The Court applied the major questions doctrine, which requires clear congressional authorization for agency actions with broad economic and political consequences. The ruling narrowed EPA’s ability to use Section 111(d) to require a systemic energy transition through regulation.
How does West Virginia v. EPA affect U.S. climate regulation?
The decision limits EPA’s ability to use Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act to require nationwide generation shifting across the power sector. It does not end EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions from power plants. Future EPA rules must rely on clearer statutory authority and source-specific emission-control measures that can withstand judicial review.
How did the major questions doctrine apply in West Virginia v. EPA?
The major questions doctrine requires agencies to identify clear congressional authorization before adopting rules with broad economic and political consequences. The Supreme Court used that doctrine to conclude that EPA’s generation-shifting approach exceeded the authority Congress delegated under Section 111(d). The ruling continues to guide judicial review of major agency actions in environmental and climate-related rulemaking.
Does West Virginia v. EPA stop EPA from regulating greenhouse gases?
Climate Expert Witness
Climate science and emissions experts are often engaged in Clean Air Act and power-sector emissions cases to explain greenhouse gas data, emission trends, and the scientific basis for climate-related regulatory decisions. They may review emissions inventories, test modeling assumptions, and explain how different control measures could affect projected CO₂ reductions.
Regulatory Compliance Expert Witness
Regulatory compliance experts may assist in environmental rulemaking disputes by evaluating how agency actions align with statutory authority, rulemaking procedures, and regulated-entity obligations. Their work may involve reviewing agency records, assessing compliance frameworks, and explaining how environmental rules are applied across regulated industries.
Power Plant Engineering Expert Witness
Power plant engineering experts are often engaged in Clean Air Act and power-sector emissions disputes to explain how electric-generation systems operate and how emission-reduction measures may affect plant performance. They may evaluate combustion efficiency, heat-rate improvements, equipment limits, plant operations, and the practical limits of proposed control measures.
Clean Air Act Expert Witness
Clean Air Act experts may be involved in environmental rulemaking disputes involving EPA authority, emission standards, administrative records, and regulatory procedures. Their analysis may address statutory provisions, agency rulemaking records, and how federal air-quality requirements apply to regulated sources.
Understand the Reach and Limits of Agency Power Under the Major Questions Doctrine
Attorneys should recognize that West Virginia v. EPA requires clear congressional authorization when an agency regulates issues with broad economic or political consequences. The ruling affects how courts review agency discretion under the Clean Air Act and other environmental statutes. Legal teams should examine whether the statute clearly supports the agency action before relying on broad regulatory interpretations involving climate or energy policy.
Align Statutory Interpretation with Congressional Intent in Climate-Related Rulemaking
The decision confirmed that courts will closely review whether regulatory programs stay within the authority Congress delegated, especially when those programs affect national climate and energy systems. Counsel advising agencies, regulated entities, or states should review statutory text, legislative history, and the limits of provisions such as Section 111(d). Strong statutory grounding can help defend rulemaking against claims that an agency exceeded its authority.
Use Technical Evidence and Expert Analysis Carefully in Environmental Litigation
Because the case focused on statutory authority, BSER interpretation, and generation shifting, legal teams should connect technical evidence directly to the regulatory question before the court. Expert analysis from climate science, power engineering, and regulatory compliance fields can help explain whether proposed emission-control measures fit within the “best system of emission reduction.” This type of analysis can support arguments in Clean Air Act disputes involving complex climate and energy systems.
Prepare for Future Climate Rules and Related Litigation
The ruling does not remove EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions, but it limits how that authority may be used under Section 111(d). Later EPA rulemaking, including the 2024 power-plant greenhouse-gas standards, EPA’s June 2025 proposed repeal, and the May 2026 OMB review of the final Carbon Pollution Standards Repeal action, shows that West Virginia v. EPA continues to affect Clean Air Act climate regulation and related litigation. Attorneys representing agencies, industries, or states should evaluate later or replacement rules by reviewing statutory authority, source-specific control measures, technical feasibility, and the administrative record supporting EPA’s reasoning.
Build a Strong Administrative Record for Judicial Review
Counsel should make sure the administrative record documents the technical basis, economic effects, and environmental reasoning behind regulatory choices. A detailed record is central to defending agency decisions under judicial review, especially in climate-related cases involving the major questions doctrine. Clear documentation of evidence, assumptions, and agency reasoning can reduce exposure to procedural and substantive challenges.
West Virginia v. EPA resolved the dispute over EPA’s 2015 Clean Power Plan and its reliance on Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act to set power-sector carbon dioxide limits through generation shifting. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the D.C. Circuit’s judgment, holding that Congress had not clearly authorized EPA to treat nationwide generation shifting as the “best system of emission reduction” for existing power plants. The ruling limited EPA’s use of Section 111(d) for regulatory action with broad economic and political consequences, but it did not end EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions from power plants under the Clean Air Act. Later EPA rulemaking, including the 2024 power-plant greenhouse-gas standards, EPA’s June 2025 proposed repeal, and the May 2026 OMB review of the final Carbon Pollution Standards Repeal action, shows that the decision continues to affect Clean Air Act climate regulation and related litigation. Later or replacement federal climate rules for the power sector must rely on statutory authority, source-specific emission-control measures, administrative record support, and reasoning capable of withstanding judicial review.
What does “best system of emission reduction” mean in West Virginia v. EPA?
The “best system of emission reduction,” or BSER, is the method EPA uses under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act to set emission standards for certain pollution sources. In West Virginia v. EPA, the dispute centered on whether BSER could include nationwide generation shifting across the power grid. The Supreme Court held that Congress had not clearly authorized EPA to use Section 111(d) in that manner.
What did the Supreme Court decide in West Virginia v. EPA?
The Supreme Court held that EPA exceeded its statutory authority when it relied on the Clean Power Plan to set emissions caps based on generation shifting across the power sector. The Court applied the major questions doctrine, which requires clear congressional authorization for agency actions with broad economic and political consequences. The ruling narrowed EPA’s ability to use Section 111(d) to require a systemic energy transition through regulation.
How does West Virginia v. EPA affect U.S. climate regulation?
The decision limits EPA’s ability to use Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act to require nationwide generation shifting across the power sector. It does not end EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions from power plants. Future EPA rules must rely on clearer statutory authority and source-specific emission-control measures that can withstand judicial review.
How did the major questions doctrine apply in West Virginia v. EPA?
The major questions doctrine requires agencies to identify clear congressional authorization before adopting rules with broad economic and political consequences. The Supreme Court used that doctrine to conclude that EPA’s generation-shifting approach exceeded the authority Congress delegated under Section 111(d). The ruling continues to guide judicial review of major agency actions in environmental and climate-related rulemaking.
Does West Virginia v. EPA stop EPA from regulating greenhouse gases?
No. The ruling did not eliminate EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. It restricted EPA’s ability to use Section 111(d) to require nationwide generation shifting without clear congressional authorization. The decision leaves room for future power-plant rules based on source-specific emission-control measures, statutory limits, and judicial review.
How does West Virginia v. EPA affect climate and energy policy?
The ruling confirms that agencies need clear congressional authorization when adopting climate or energy rules with broad economic and political consequences. It limits agency-led power-sector transitions that rely on existing statutory language without a clear delegation from Congress. The decision is cited in later disputes involving agency authority, Clean Air Act rulemaking, and federal climate regulation.
Clean Air Act
Climate
Environmental Protection Agency EPA
Air Pollution
Carbon dioxide
Environmental Compliance
Regulatory Issues
Energy industry
Clean Energy
Energy economics
Energy, +4
Energy
Energy, +4
Energy
No. The ruling did not eliminate EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. It restricted EPA’s ability to use Section 111(d) to require nationwide generation shifting without clear congressional authorization. The decision leaves room for future power-plant rules based on source-specific emission-control measures, statutory limits, and judicial review.
How does West Virginia v. EPA affect climate and energy policy?
The ruling confirms that agencies need clear congressional authorization when adopting climate or energy rules with broad economic and political consequences. It limits agency-led power-sector transitions that rely on existing statutory language without a clear delegation from Congress. The decision is cited in later disputes involving agency authority, Clean Air Act rulemaking, and federal climate regulation.