The U.S. Supreme Court has imposed limits on the authority of the U.S. government to issue comprehensive regulations to reduce carbon emissions from power plants.
Key points:
- It restricts EPA authority to regulate emissions from coal and gas power plants
- The six conservatives in the court were the majority and the three liberal judges disagreed
- The ruling raises new legal issues about major decisions made by federal agencies
The ruling undermines President Joe Biden’s plans to tackle climate change and could limit several agencies on other issues.
Judgment 6-3 of the court restricted the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from existing coal and gas power plants under the Anti-Pollution Act. the Clean Air Act.
The Biden administration is currently working on new regulations.
The court’s six Conservatives were the majority in the decision of Court President John Roberts, while three Liberals disagreed.
The EPA and the White House said administration attorneys are analyzing the decision and looking for ways to address the emissions in accordance with existing laws.
“President Biden will not give in by using the authorities he has by law to protect public health and deal with the climate change crisis,” a White House spokesman said.
It raises new legal questions about major decisions made by U.S. federal agencies. (AP: Jose Luis Magana)
The ruling is likely to have implications beyond the EPA, as it raises new legal issues about major decisions made by federal agencies.
The Conservative majority in the Supreme Court has expressed constant skepticism towards an expansive federal regulatory authority.
Conservative legal activists have long advocated for reducing the agency’s power in what has been dubbed a “war on the administrative state.”
Judges overturned a 2021 decision by the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that had overturned former Republican President Donald Trump’s affordable clean energy rule.
This regulation, which the Biden administration has said it has no intention of maintaining, would impose limits on a provision of the Clean Air Act called Section 111 that provides EPA authority to regulate emissions from existing power plants. .
The ruling was based on what is called the “main issues” legal doctrine that requires explicit authorization from Congress to act on issues of broad importance and social impact.
Judges in January seemed to accept this theory when they blocked the Biden administration’s vaccine or testing policy for larger companies, a key element of their plan to combat the COVID-19 pandemic.
The White House says Joe Biden will continue to use his authorities to tackle climate change. (AP: Pablo Martinez Monsivais)
The court’s invocation of this doctrine sends a signal that judges will be a major hurdle for federal agencies seeking to implement broad policies of national importance.
The decision will limit the EPA’s ability to issue any regulations on power plants that drive an ambitious national shift in energy policy toward renewable sources.
As such, the ruling will affect the Biden administration’s ability to curb emissions from the electricity sector, which account for about a quarter of U.S. greenhouse gases.
Republicans applaud decision against “excess federal scope”
A group of Republican-led U.S. states led by West Virginia’s largest coal producer asked judges to limit the EPA’s ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants.
The court’s six Conservatives were the majority in the decision and three Liberals disagreed.
Other challengers included coal companies and coal-friendly industry groups. Coal is one of the most fuel-intensive greenhouse gases.
West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey described the sentence as a “huge victory against federal excess and administrative state excesses.”
Roberts wrote that while limiting carbon emissions to a level that would force a nationwide energy transition could be a reasonable political solution, “it is not plausible that Congress would give the EPA the authority to adopt for itself this regulatory scheme “.
Writing in dissent, Liberal Judge Elena Kagan said the court had chosen to obstruct Mr Biden’s climate agenda before the administration issued its rule.
“The limits that the majority now puts on the authority of the EPA face the statute that Congress wrote,” Kagan added.
In doing so, the court “deprives the EPA of the power required – and the power granted – to curb greenhouse gas emissions.”
On the broader scope of the ruling, Kagan said the court has a clear goal: “To prevent agencies from doing important work, even though that is what Congress directed.”
The case centered around Trump’s affordable clean energy rule, intended to impose limits on a provision of the Clean Air Act called Section 111 that provides the EPA’s authority to regulate emissions. existing power plants.
The rule proposed by Trump was aimed at supplanting former Democratic President Barack Obama’s Clean Energy Plan that required significant reductions in the energy industry’s carbon emissions.
The Obama plan had used Section 111 to drive a shift in coal power generation to cleaner energy sources.
Reuters