WASHINGTON (AP) – In a bid to fight climate change, the Supreme Court on Thursday limited how the main national law against air pollution can be used to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.
By a vote of 6 to 3, with the Conservatives in the majority, the court said the Clean Air Act does not give the Environmental Protection Agency broad authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions greenhouse of power plants that contribute to global warming.
The decision, according to environmentalists and dissenting liberal judges, was a major step in the wrong direction, “a punch,” a prominent meteorologist said, at a time of increasing environmental damage attributable to the change. climate amid terrible warnings about the future.
The court ruling could complicate the administration’s plans to combat climate change. Its detailed proposal is expected to regulate emissions from power plants by the end of the year. Although the decision was specific to the EPA, it was in line with the skepticism of the Conservative majority about the power of regulatory agencies and sent a message about possible future effects beyond climate change and global pollution. air.
The decision put an exclamation point in a judicial deadline in which a conservative majority, bolstered by three nominees by former President Donald Trump, also overturned the right to abortion nationwide for nearly 50 years, it expanded arms rights and issued important rulings on religious rights. all liberal dissents.
President Joe Biden aims to halve the country’s greenhouse gas emissions by the end of the decade and have an emission-free electricity sector by 2035. Power plants account for about 30% of dioxide production. of carbon.
“Limiting carbon dioxide emissions to a level that forces a nationwide transition away from the use of coal to generate electricity may be a ‘sensible solution to the crisis of the day,'” Chief Justice John wrote. Roberts in his opinion to the court.
But Roberts wrote that the Clean Air Act does not give the EPA the authority to do so and that Congress must speak clearly on this issue.
“A decision of this magnitude and consequences rests with Congress itself, or with an agency acting in accordance with a clear delegation from that representative body,” he wrote.
In a dissent, Judge Elena Kagan wrote that the decision deprives the EPA of the power given to it by Congress to respond to “the most urgent environmental challenge of our time.”
Kagan said the case is high. He said: “The Court designates itself, rather than Congress or the expert agency, who makes the decisions on climate policy. I can’t think of many more terrifying things.”
Biden, in a statement, described the ruling as “another devastating decision that seeks to take our country back.” He said he “would not give in by using my legal authorities to protect public health and deal with the climate crisis.”
And EPA chief Michael Regan said his agency will move forward with a standard for imposing environmental standards on the energy sector.
UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric also called for the decision to be “a step backwards in our fight against climate change, when we are already far from meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement,” the agreement said. international climate that the US left during the Trump. administration and re-entered once Biden took possession.
West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, who addressed the legal challenge to EPA authority, said “the EPA can no longer dodge Congress to exercise broad regulatory power that would radically transform the country’s energy network and would force states to fundamentally change their coal energy portfolios.
But University of Georgia meteorology professor Marshall Shepherd, former president of the American Meteorological Society, said of the decision: “It seems like a punch to critical efforts to combat the climate crisis that has the potential to put at risk. lives for decades. come. ”
Richard Revesz, an environmental expert at New York University School of Law, described the decision as “a significant setback for environmental protection and public health guarantees.”
But he also said in a statement that the EPA still has authority to address greenhouse gas emissions from the electricity sector.
EPA Administrator Regan said the agency “will move forward with the legal establishment and implementation of environmental standards that meet our obligation to protect all individuals and all communities from environmental damage.”
Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer of New York said the consequences of Thursday’s decision “will affect the entire federal government, from food and drug regulation to our country’s health care system.” all of this will put the lives of Americans at risk. “
The court held that Congress must speak specifically when it wants to grant authority to an agency to regulate an issue of great national importance.
Several conservative judges have criticized what they consider the uncontrolled power of federal agencies.
These concerns were evident in court orders eliminating two Biden administration policies aimed at reducing the spread of COVID-19. Last summer, the conservative 6-3 court majority ended a pause in evictions for unpaid rent. In January, the same six judges blocked the requirement that workers in large employers be vaccinated or tested periodically and wear masks at work.
At the root of all these problems is a lack of congressional action, reflecting bitter partisan disagreements over the role of the federal government.
As for the environment, Biden’s signed plan to address the climate, a broad social and environmental policy bill known as Build Back Better, is nearly dead amid united opposition from Republicans in Congress and the Democratic senator conservative Joe Manchin of the West Virginia coal state.
Under a cropped version, Democrat-backed legislation would offer tax breaks and spending to boost renewable energy such as wind and solar and significantly increase the number of electric vehicles.
Judges heard arguments in the case the same day the report from a UN panel warned that the effects of climate change are about to get much worse, and will likely make the world sicker, more hungry, poorer and more dangerous in the coming years.
The plant’s case has a long and complicated history that begins with the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan. This plan would have forced states to reduce emissions from electricity generation, mainly by moving away from coal-fired power plants.
But this plan never came into effect. Acting in a lawsuit filed by West Virginia and others, the Supreme Court blocked it in 2016 by a 5-4 vote, with the Conservatives in the majority.
With the plan pending, the legal fight for him continued. But after President Donald Trump took office, the EPA repealed the Obama-era plan. The Trump agency argued that its authority to reduce carbon emissions was limited and devised a new plan that drastically reduced the role of the federal government in the issue.
New York, 21 other mostly Democratic states, the District of Columbia and some of the country’s largest cities sued for the Trump plan. The Washington Federal Court of Appeals ruled against both the repeal and the new plan, and its decision left nothing in force as the new administration drafted a new policy.
In addition to the unusual nature of the high court’s involvement, the cuts the Obama plan intended for 2030 have already been achieved through the market-driven closure of hundreds of coal-fired power plants.
Nineteen states and coal companies led mostly by Republicans led the fight in the Supreme Court against the broad EPA authority to regulate carbon production.
___
Associated Press writers Matthew Daly, Seth Borenstein and Cathy Bussewitz in New York contributed to this report.