Environmental Defense v. Duke Energy Corp.
2007 United States Supreme Court case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Environmental Defense v. Duke Energy Corp.?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
Environmental Defense v. Duke Energy Corporation, 549 U.S. 561 (2007), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that while a term may be used more than once in a statute, an agency has the discretion to interpret each use of the term in a different way based on the context. It involved the Environmental Defense Fund and Duke Energy. In a unanimous decision, the court held in favor of the plaintiff's (Environmental Defense) argument.
Environmental Defense v. Duke Energy Corporation | |
---|---|
Argued November 1, 2006 Decided April 2, 2007 | |
Full case name | Environmental Defense, et al., Petitioners v. Duke Energy Corporation, et al. |
Docket no. | 05-848 |
Citations | 549 U.S. 561 (more) 127 S. Ct. 1423; 167 L. Ed. 2d 295; 2007 U.S. LEXIS 3784; 75 U.S.L.W. 4167; 63 ERC (BNA) 2088; 37 ELR 20076; 20 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 123 |
Case history | |
Prior | On writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit |
Holding | |
The interpretation of a "modification" in the Clean Air Act, in regards to Prevention of Significant Deterioration and New Source Performance Standard, does not require the same regulatory implementation. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Souter, joined by Roberts, Stevens, Scalia, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito; Thomas (all but Part III–A) |
Concurrence | Thomas (in part) |
This case addressed the Clean Air Act (CAA) and two of its programs, Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and New Source Performance Standard (NSPS). PSD applies to regulating annual emissions; NSPS pertains to regulating hourly emissions, although the defendants argued that the hourly emissions of their facilities remained unchanged. Each section of the Clean Air Act, that outlines the provisions of the PSD and the NSPS, defines "modification" differently. As a result, the inconsistency of the term "modification" in the CAA becomes the main debate of the case and the main argument for both the plaintiffs and defendants.