Clean Power Plan political timeline

This article does not receive scheduled updates. If you would like to help our coverage grow, consider donating to Ballotpedia. Contact our team to suggest an update.

State energy policy
U.S. energy policy
U.S. fracking policy
Energy terms

This article outlines the timeline and political debate related to the development and finalization of the Clean Power Plan. An overview of the plan itself can be accessed here.

On March 28, 2017, President Donald Trump (R) signed an executive order directing the EPA to rescind the Clean Power Plan. Regarding the plan and energy production, Trump stated, "Perhaps no single regulation threatens our miners, energy workers, and companies more than this crushing attack [the Clean Power Plan] on American industry." On October 10, 2017, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt issued a proposed rule to repeal the plan, arguing that the plan "was premised on a novel and expansive view of Agency authority" and "ignored states' concerns and eroded longstanding and important partnerships that are a necessary part of achieving positive environmental outcomes."

The Clean Power Plan, also known as the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) 111(d) rule, is a regulation that would mandate reductions in carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions from new and existing power plants by 32 percent from 2005 emission levels by the year 2030. The plan, which was proposed by the EPA in June 2014 and finalized in October 2015, aimed to respond to potentially human-caused climate change by limiting CO₂ emissions produced by human activity. In February 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court blocked the plan from going into effect. According to the EPA, "Since the Industrial Revolution began around 1750, human activities have contributed substantially to climate change by adding CO₂ and other heat-trapping gases to the atmosphere."

In 2013, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy testified before Congress about the EPA's general approach to policies related to limits on CO₂ emissions and the impact of these limits on the climate change indicators listed on the EPA's website, such as higher ocean temperatures, the amount of snowpack, and the frequency of wildfires. McCarthy said, "It is unlikely that any specific one step is going to be seen as having a visible change on any of those impacts. What I'm suggesting is that climate change has to be a broad array of actions that the U.S. and other folks in the international community take that make a significant effort toward reducing greenhouse gases."

In announcing the finalized Clean Power Plan in 2015, President Barack Obama (D) said about climate change and the plan, "When the world faces its toughest challenges, America leads the way forward. That's what this plan is about."

Background

A study conducted in 2016 by the Pew Research Center showed that about 48 percent of Americans believed climate change was caused by human activity, while 31 percent said it had roots in natural causes and 20 percent said there was no evidence of climate change at all.

Plan timeline

The Clean Power Plan is an EPA administrative action and did not originate in the legislative branch. When the EPA finalized the Clean Power Plan in 2015, the agency justified the plan based on its interpretation of the Clean Air Act. The following timeline shows the legal and regulatory steps taken from 2007 to April 2017 in reverse chronological order.

• October 10, 2017: EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt issued a proposed rule to repeal the plan, arguing that the plan "was premised on a novel and expansive view of Agency authority" and "ignored states' concerns and eroded longstanding and important partnerships that are a necessary part of achieving positive environmental outcomes." The EPA argued that the Obama administration's cost and benefit estimates for the plan were uncertain and controversial. The EPA also estimated that the plan's repeal would provide up to $33 billion in avoided compliance costs. Attorney Generals Eric Schneiderman (D-N.Y.) and Maura Healey (D-Mass.) announced that they would sue the EPA over the repeal. Healey argued that the "decision to abandon the Clean Power Plan violates the law." Opponents of repeal argued that it would be contrary to the EPA's 2009 determination that greenhouse gases should be regulated as pollutants under the federal Clean Air Act. Schneiderman argued that the repeal involves "putting industry special interests ahead of New Yorkers’ and all Americans’ safety, health, and the environment."

• May 16, 2017: Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) signed an executive order directing officials at the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality to develop regulations to reduce carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions from power plants in the state. Under the order, state regulators were required to submit a report by December 31, 2017, outlining potential regulations limiting CO₂ emissions in the state's electric power sector. McAuliffe said in a statement, "As the federal government abdicates its role on this important issue, it is critical for states to fill the void." Virginia was one of 19 states under divided government as of May 2017.

• April 28, 2017: The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which heard oral arguments on the Clean Power Plan in September 2016, granted a request by the Trump administration to halt the lawsuit against the plan, meaning that the court will not rule on the legality of the plan.

• March 28, 2017: President Donald Trump (R) signed an executive order directing the EPA to consider formally repealing the Clean Power Plan. Trump argued that the executive order aimed to end the war on coal—a term used by opponents of the Obama administration's climate and energy regulations—which they believe will lead to the closure of coal-fired power plants and eliminate jobs in the coal industry. Describing the Clean Power Plan, Trump said, "Perhaps no single regulation threatens our miners, energy workers, and companies more than this crushing attack on American industry."
• February 9, 2016: The U.S. Supreme Court delayed the Clean Power Plan's implementation pending a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Under the stay, the EPA was prohibited from enforcing any of the plan's related deadlines, including the September 6, 2016, deadline for state governments to submit their plans detailing their compliance with the Clean Power Plan.
• August 3, 2015: President Barack Obama (D) announced the finalized version of the Clean Power Plan, which was published in the Federal Register in October 2015. The final plan made revisions (outlined here) to the draft 2014 plan. Obama stated, "With this Clean Power Plan, by 2030, carbon pollution from our power plants will be 32 percent lower than it was a decade ago." In addition, Obama argued that the plan aimed to make the U.S. an international leader on climate change and renewable energy policies. "The only reason that China is now looking at getting serious about its emissions is because they saw that we were going to do it, too. When the world faces its toughest challenges, America leads the way forward. That’s what this plan is about," Obama said.
• July 9, 2015: One month prior to the Clean Power Plan's finalization, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy appeared before the U.S. House Science Committee, where the committee chair Lamar Smith (R-Texas) cited former Assistant Secretary of Energy Charles McConnell’s op-ed for The Hill, in which McConnell stated that the EPA’s plan would mean "a resulting 0.01 degree Celsius impact to global temperature." When asked if McCarthy disagreed with the figure, she replied, "I’m not disagreeing that this action in and of itself will not make all the difference we need to address climate action. But what I’m saying is that if we don’t take action domestically, we will never get started."

• June 2, 2014: The EPA released its proposal to limit CO₂ emissions from new and existing power plants. The proposal, which would later become the Clean Power Plan, mandated a 30-percent reduction in CO₂ and similar compounds from power plants from 2005 levels by the year 2030. As required under the Administrative Procedure Act, the EPA held a notice-and-comment period on the proposal from June 18, 2014, to December 1, 2014. During the public comment period, the EPA received over 4.3 million comments that were reviewed before the plan was finalized. Because a majority of the comments came from mass mailing campaigns, it was determined that the agency received 33,000 unique public comments. Of the approximately 33,000 comments, around 1,700 were reviewed by the EPA for their legal, scientific, and technical arguments regarding the EPA's proposal. Both the comments and the EPA's response to them can be found here. A map with links to the comments made by politicians, utilities, and other organizations in each state is available here.
• September 18, 2013: EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy testified before the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee about the EPA's general approach to policies related to climate change, global warming, and limits on CO₂ emissions. When asked about whether the agency's proposed climate regulations would directly affect the climate change indicators listed on the EPA's website—such as higher ocean temperatures, the amount of snowpack, and the frequency of wildfires—McCarthy said, "It is unlikely that any specific one step is going to be seen as having a visible change on any of those impacts. What I’m suggesting is that climate change has to be a broad array of actions that the U.S. and other folks in the international community take that make a significant effort toward reducing greenhouse gases." McCarthy added, "What we're attempting to do is put together a comprehensive climate plan across the administration that positions the U.S. for leadership on this issue and that will prompt and leverage international discussions and actions."
• June 25, 2013: President Obama released his Climate Action Plan outlining proposed federal policies on limiting CO₂ emissions from power plants and increasing renewable energy use. The plan characterized carbon dioxide and similar emissions from power plants as carbon pollution and directed the EPA to write a federal rule limiting these emissions from new and existing power plants. This rule would eventually become the Clean Power Plan. According to the 2013 climate action plan, “With abundant clean energy solutions available, and building on the leadership of states and local governments, we can make continued progress in reducing power plant pollution to improve public health and the environment while supplying the reliable, affordable power needed for economic growth.” Additionally, the administration argued that the climate action plan's aim was to set the United States as a global leader on international climate change policies. According to the plan, "America must help forge a truly global solution to this global challenge by galvanizing international action to significantly reduce emissions (particularly among the major emitting countries), prepare for climate impacts, and drive progress through the international negotiations."

• December 7, 2009: The EPA issued a finding arguing that CO₂ emissions from motor vehicles contribute to human-caused climate change and thus should be regulated under the Clean Air Act. The 2009 finding served as the scientific and technical basis for the EPA's subsequent regulations for limiting CO₂ and similar emissions from motor vehicles. In addition, the EPA's motor vehicle regulations triggered the agency's regulation of CO₂ emissions from certain types of large stationary sources, such as steel mill plants and iron manufacturing facilities, under the Clean Air Act.
• April 2, 2007: In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (2007) that carbon dioxide (CO₂) and similar greenhouse gases (heat-trapping substances in the atmosphere that keep the planet warm for organic life) are air pollutants under the Clean Air Act and can be regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The court's majority argued that the EPA must regulate CO₂ emissions from new motor vehicles if they are found to be endangering public health and welfare. Additionally, the court's majority ordered the EPA to determine the question of whether CO₂ and similar gases contribute to air pollution that could harm public health and welfare.

Support and opposition

The political debate over the Clean Power Plan has been focused on the plan's legality, its costs and benefits, its potential impact on global temperatures and the climate, and its effects on energy consumers and producers, among other issues. The information below summarizes the political and policy arguments made by proponents and opponents of the plan.

Support

• Lynn Good, CEO of Duke Energy, an electric power holding company based in North Carolina, said, "This ambitious plan seeks to build on the substantial progress Duke Energy and other utilities have made to reduce our environmental footprint. Even without federal regulations, our company has reduced carbon dioxide emissions from our power plants by 22 percent since 2005. As we continue to move to a lower carbon future, we will also continue to work constructively with states to identify customer solutions that preserve the reliability and affordability that our communities expect. As we continue to modernize our system, energy diversity will be important – nuclear, natural gas, state-of-the-art coal, hydro, renewables, energy efficiency and energy storage."
• Steven Nadel, executive director of American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, a nonprofit organization that supports energy efficiency policies and renewable energy programs, said, "EPA and the president have made it clear that investing in energy efficiency will be a major opportunity for states looking for ways to comply with the Clean Power Plan rule. The inclusion of energy efficiency in compliance plans is much more important than whether energy efficiency is used in EPA calculations to develop individual state targets. Energy efficiency is generally the cheapest, fastest, and most readily available path for states looking to achieve substantial emissions reductions, while maintaining affordable and reliable power for their citizens."
• Dan Lashof, chief operating officer of NextGen Climate America, an environmental group that supports policies requiring CO₂ emissions reductions, said, "With today’s Clean Power Plan final rule, President Obama has shown what clean energy leadership looks like. The Clean Power Plan establishes the first-ever nationwide limits on dangerous carbon pollution from power plants—providing a huge push for the investments in clean, renewable energy that will create a healthier, more prosperous and more sustainable future for our kids. Accelerating the shift to clean energy will lower electricity bills, add well-paying jobs right here in the United States, and strike a major blow against climate change."
• In response to the EPA's August 2015 announcement of the Clean Power Plan, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) argued that the plan would help reduce CO₂ emissions, mitigate the potential impacts of global warming, and would lead to job growth in renewable energy industries. Leahy stated, "It is the proper role of government, acting for all the people of the nation, to set overall rules so we can see hidden costs and deal with them. By setting clear rules, we can begin meeting these goals that indisputably will benefit all Americans, and spark our emerging clean-energy economy. Clear rules send marketplace signals that will unleash the vigor and creativity of American entrepreneurship and investment."
• In August 2015, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) argued that the Clean Power Plan would produce tangible results in mitigating human-caused climate change and would show U.S. leadership on the issue ahead of the December 2015 United Nations conference on climate change. Murphy said, "This plan will cut greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. by nearly a third within 15 years, create U.S. jobs, and enhance the reliability of our power grids. Despite baseless objections from Republicans, this final action plan will deliver measurable results for our environment and promote meaningful action on climate change with our partners around the world ahead of the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Paris later this year."
• In August 2015, Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) argued that the Clean Power Plan would help reduce CO₂ emissions at power plants and shift the U.S. energy system toward renewable energy sources such as wind and solar. Coons said, "President Obama’s historic Clean Power Plan is a critical step forward in combatting this challenge by working with states to significantly cut harmful carbon pollution from the power sector and accelerate the shift towards clean energy and energy efficiency. We can't afford to miss the opportunity to push our country toward a clean energy economy." In addition, Coons argued that the U.S. must act on human-caused climate change to retain its role as a global leader, stating, "If the United States is going to remain a leader in the 21st century, we must be at the forefront of confronting climate change."
• In August 2015, the Environmental Defense Fund, an environmental advocacy group that supports policies requiring CO₂ emissions reductions, argued that the Clean Power Plan would promote jobs in the renewable energy industry. He encouraged states to comply with the plan, stating, "The Clean Power Plan will reduce carbon emissions from power plant smokestacks — and by doing so it also creates new opportunities to continue development of the strong, vibrant clean energy economy that is creating prosperity. The states that join the race first, and run it the fastest, will win both more investment in clean technologies and less air pollution for their communities."
• In August 2015, Harold P. Wimmer, CEO of the American Lung Association, a voluntary health organization that supports policies requiring CO₂ emissions reductions, argued that the Clean Power Plan would produce additional lung health benefits, stating, "The evidence is clear that climate change now harms lung health and public safety. Warmer temperatures degrade air quality by making ozone pollution worse than it should be, and create more particle pollution from increased wildfires and drought. ... The Clean Power Plan is the first national program to clean up carbon pollution from power plants. Not only will it reduce the carbon pollution that causes climate change, but it will also lead to less soot- and smog-forming pollution, resulting in significant health benefits."

Opposition

• In a March 2016 letter, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told state governors that their states should not take action to comply with the Clean Power Plan due to issues over the plan's legality and the U.S. Supreme Court's February 2016 stay. McConnell said, "The [Obama] administration ignored the Clean Air Act's clear intentions that power plants not be subject to duplicative regulation under both the Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants and the Existing Source Performance Standards." Further, McConnell argued that the Obama administration pushed the Clean Power Plan as an administrative action because the administration could not persuade Congress to pass a cap-and-trade system to limit CO₂ emissions. McConnell stated, "After this proposal [cap-and-trade] failed to pass Congress, the administration argued it has the authority it needs to bring about the same result under an obscure, almost half-century old provision of the Clean Air Act."
• In August 2015, Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) argued that the Clean Power Plan would burden states, electric utilities, and consumers as well as inhibit the use of coal for electricity generation. Heitkamp said, "EPA's over-reaching policy won’t work for North Dakota. We now have EPA in the driver’s seat dictating how we generate and transmit electricity, and that’s a dangerous road to go down. If we’re serious about becoming North American energy independent while reducing greenhouse gases, we need policies that incentivize the use of natural gas as an alternative and the development of viable and cost effective clean coal technology, as my legislation would do, so we can find a viable path forward for coal – which produces almost a third of the nation’s electricity."
• Announcing a resolution to repeal the Clean Power Plan, Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) argued in October 2015 that the Clean Power Plan would negatively affect energy production and inhibit economic growth. Capito said, "It is my intent to pursue all available avenues for fighting back against the administration’s devastating assault on West Virginia’s energy industry. Too many Americans, jobs, families and communities have been negatively impacted by this administration’s overreaching regulations, and more pain will be felt if the Clean Power Plan is ever implemented. Congress deserves to have an opportunity to vote on whether the administration’s far-reaching energy regulations should go into effect, and I look forward to working with Leader [Mitch] McConnell and others to make that happen." In November 2015, Capito argued that the plan would inhibit the use of coal for electricity generation and harm consumers who rely on coal-based electricity, stating, "The [Obama] administration needs to understand coal's role in our energy landscape, and I will continue my efforts to ensure that our state has access to affordable, reliable energy."
• In an October 2015 press statement announcing its lawsuit challenging the Clean Power Plan, Murray Energy Corporation, a U.S. coal company based in Ohio, argued that the plan was an unlawful exercise by the EPA to alter the U.S. electric system, stating, "This is an unprecedented attempt by EPA to commandeer and re-design the United States’ electrical system, essentially dictating how electricity is to be produced and how much can be used. This political power grab of America’s power grid by the Obama EPA is clearly illegal, goes far beyond any statutory authority, and is, in fact, expressly prohibited by the Clean Air Act." In addition, Robert Murray, CEO of Murray Energy, said, "Our citizens on fixed incomes will not be able to pay their electric bills, and our manufacturers of products for the global marketplace will not be able to compete."
• Thomas Pyle, president of the American Energy Alliance, a nonprofit organization that supports free market energy policies, argued that the plan would have little to no effect on reducing global warming and would place high costs on energy producers and consumers. Pyle said, "It’s important to remember that President Obama’s carbon regulation, the crown jewel of his climate legacy, has no impact on climate change. EPA’s own models show that their carbon rule will limit global temperature rise by a mere 0.018 degrees Celsius by 2100. That’s a bad deal for the American people."
• Mike Duncan, president and CEO of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, a partnership of companies that use coal to generate electricity, said, "With the release of the final carbon regulation, the President once again demonstrated his lack of empathy for hard working Americans across the country who first and foremost wish to secure a robust economic future. Instead of putting their priorities first, the President shamefully put his political legacy first."
• Howard J. Feldman, senior director of regulatory and scientific affairs at the American Petroleum Institute, a national trade association that represents the oil and natural gas industry, said, "Over the last few years, consumer-driven investments in natural gas have lowered energy bills for hard-pressed families while helping cut emissions to near 20-year lows. By picking winners and losers in the energy mix, EPA’s rules could force consumers to pay far more money for far fewer environmental benefits. America’s oil and natural gas industry invests more in zero- and low-emissions technologies than the federal government and nearly as much as all other industries combined. With or without new regulations, natural gas will continue to grow as a critical source of clean energy, but the EPA’s rule does more harm than good."
• The Institute for Energy Research, a nonprofit research organization that supports free market energy policies, stated in an analysis of the Clean Power Plan, "The final 'Clean Power Plan' rule is a war against coal and a mandate to construct expensive renewable (wind and solar) capacity. The only way this happens is by using taxpayers’ funds to pay for large subsidies to renewable plant operators and investors and forcing American consumers to endure higher electricity costs." The article stated further, "The impact of the President’s plan on global warming is virtually nil – even using the EPA’s own modeling. Since the cost of the plan is so high, and involves an entire makeover of our electricity production system, Americans should be asking themselves whether this makes any sense at all."

Congressional action

The sections below summarize the congressional votes related to the Clean Power Plan as of March 2017, when President Trump issued his executive order.

Senate

In late 2015, Congress voted on two resolutions repealing the Clean Power Plan. In November 2015, the Senate approved a resolution by a vote of 52 to 46 to repeal the plan's provision mandating CO₂ reductions at existing power plants. A second resolution to repeal CO₂ reductions for newly built power plants passed by the same vote margin. The Senate held its vote under the Congressional Review Act of 1996, which allows Congress to repeal newly published federal regulations within 60 days of their finalization; the repeal must then be signed by the president. The Congressional Review act requires 51 votes rather than the 60 votes needed to pass other Senate legislation.

Three Democratic senators—Joe Donnelly (Ind.), Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.), and Joe Manchin (W.Va.)—joined a majority of Republicans to repeal the Clean Power Plan. Three Republican senators—Kelly Ayotte (N.H.), Susan Collins (Maine), and Mark Kirk (Ill.)—voted with the majority of Democrats against repealing the plan.

House

In December 2015, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a resolution repealing the Clean Power Plan's provision mandating CO₂ reductions from existing power plants by a vote of 242 to 180. In addition, the House passed a resolution repealing CO₂ reductions for newly built power plants by a vote of 235 to 188.

Four House Democrats voted with the majority of Republicans for the resolutions to repeal the plan: Reps. Brad Ashford (Neb.), Collin Peterson (Minn.), Sanford D. Bishop Jr. (Ga.), and Henry Cuellar (Texas).

Two House Republicans—Reps. Richard Hanna (N.Y.) and Bob Dold (Ill.)—voted against the resolution to repeal CO₂ emissions standards for existing power plants. Ten House Republicans—Hanna, Dold, Ryan Costello (Pa.), Brian Fitzpatrick (Pa.), Carlos Curbelo (Fla.), Patrick Meehan (Pa.), Frank LoBiondo (N.J.), John Katko (N.Y.), Chris Gibson (N.Y.), and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (Fla.)—voted against the resolution to repeal CO₂ emissions standards for newly built power plants.

On December 19, 2015, President Obama vetoed both resolutions.

Legal challenges

In an article summarizing the Clean Power Plan, the Harvard Law Review argued that the Clean Power Plan "represents an unprecedented exercise of the EPA’s jurisdiction over the energy sector." As such, the Clean Power Plan has been subject to several legal challenges focusing on the EPA's interpretation of the Clean Air Act to justify its regulation of CO₂ and greenhouse gas emissions from power plants.

As March 2017, more than 100 parties—including 26 states, three labor organizations, electric utilities, several nonprofits, and more than two dozen coal and oil companies—filed over 35 lawsuits challenging the Clean Power Plan. The lawsuits were consolidated into the case State of West Virginia, et al. v. EPA. Though Nevada did not join a lawsuit challenging the plan, the state opposed the Clean Power Plan as of March 2017. As of March 2017, 18 states, the District of Columbia, over 50 municipalities, power companies, and several nonprofits had filed amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs in support of the plan.

The map below shows stances of state attorneys general on the Clean Power Plan as of March 31, 2017.

Notice an error? Email us: editor@ballotpedia.org.

See also

• 

  Energy policy in the U.S.

• 

  Clean Power Plan overview

• 

  Environmental policy in the U.S.

Footnotes

Ballotpedia

About

Overview • What people are saying • Support Ballotpedia • Contact • Contribute • Job opportunities

---

Executive: Leslie Graves, Founder and CEO • Gwen Beattie, Chief Operating Officer

Communications: Alison Graves, Director of Communications • Carley Allensworth • Abigail Campbell • Frank Festa • Sarah Groat • Nathaniel Harwood • Dillon Redmond • Erica Shumaker
External Relations: Geoff Pallay, Director of External Relations • Ken Carbullido, Vice President of Election Product and Technology Strategy • Ashley Fleming • Thomas Mardik • Hannah Nelson
Operations: Meghann Olshefski, Director of Operations • Amanda Herbert • Mandy Morris • Caroline Presnell • Kelly Rindfleisch
Tech: Matt Latourelle, Director of Technology Operations • Ryan Burch • Kirsten Corrao • Beth Dellea • Travis Eden • Tate Kamish • Margaret Kearney • Eric Lotto • Joseph Sanchez • Mary Susmitha

Contributors: Scott Rasmussen

---

Editorial Content

Josh Altic, Director of Content • Daniel Anderson, Associate Director of Elections & Data • Cory Eucalitto, Associate Director of Features • Ryan Byrne, Managing Editor of Ballot Measures • Mandy McConnell, Managing Editor of News • Doug Kronaizl, Managing Editor of Local Expansion • Abbey Smith, Managing Editor of Elections • Janie Valentine, Managing Editor of Law • Joel Williams. Managing Editor of Events • Andrew Bahl • Jaclyn Beran • Marielle Bricker • Joseph Brusgard • Emma Burlingame • Kelly Coyle • Jon Dunn • Thomas Ellis • Nicole Fisher • Joseph Greaney • Thomas Grobben • Jaime Healy-Plotkin • Brianna Hosea • Molly Kehoe • Tyler King • Glorie Martinez • Norm Leahy, Senior Editor • Nathan Maxwell • Jimmy McAllister • Brandon McCauley • Ellie Mikus • Ellen Morrissey • Mackenzie Murphy • Kaley Platek • Samantha Post • Adam Powell • Annelise Reinwald • Ethan Rice • Spencer Richardson • Victoria Rose • Briana Ryan • Myj Saintyl • Maddy Salucka • Emma Soukup • Alexis Thacker • Mina Vogel • Samuel Wonacott • Trenton Woodcox