Back view of the U.S. Supreme Court on June 6, 2022 in Washington, DC. According to media reports,
Drew Angerer | Getty Images
The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the Environmental Protection Agency has no authority to set rules on climate-changing greenhouse gas emissions for existing power plants.
In its 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court said Congress, not the EPA, has that power.
The court ruling on the case affects the federal government’s authority to set standards for pollutants that heat the planet such as carbon dioxide from existing power plants under the historic Clean Air Act.
The decision is a major setback for the Biden administration’s agenda to combat climate change, specifically the goal of reducing carbon emissions from power plants by 2035 and halving the country’s emissions by the end. of the decade.
The case comes from the EPA’s 2015 directive on coal-fired power plants to reduce production or subsidize alternative forms of energy. This order was never executed because it was immediately challenged in the courts.
According to the EPA, fossil fuel power plants are the second largest source of pollution in the U.S. behind transportation. The United States is also the second largest producer of greenhouse gases behind China, making them a key player in global efforts to combat climate change.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, in the case, known as West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, which was joined by the other five Conservative members of the Supreme Court.
The decision is the first time a majority opinion has explicitly cited the so-called doctrine of big questions to justify a ruling. This controversial doctrine holds that with matters of important national importance, a regulatory agency must have clear legal authority from Congress to take certain actions and not rely on its general authority on the agency.
Roberts wrote, “There is little reason to think that Congress assigned these decisions” on the regulations in question to the EPA, despite the agency’s belief that “Congress implicitly entrusted it, and only to him, to balance the many vital considerations of national politics involved in deciding how Americans will get their energy. “
“Limiting carbon dioxide emissions to a level that will force a nationwide transition away from the use of coal to generate electricity may be a‘ sensible solution to the crisis of the day, ’” Roberts wrote, “but no it is plausible that Congress will give EPA the authority to adopt this regulatory scheme on its own. “
He added: “A decision of this magnitude and consequences is up to Congress itself, or to an agency acting in accordance with a clear delegation from this representative body.”
Judge Elena Kagan wrote a dissent, which was joined by the other two liberals in court.
Today, the Court deprives the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of the power given to it by Congress to respond to the “most urgent environmental challenge of our time,” Kagan wrote in that dissent.
“The Court designates itself, rather than Congress or the expert agency, who makes decisions about climate policy. I can’t think of many more terrifying things,” Kagan wrote.
He also said: “The majority states that it only follows a precedent, but it is not. The Court has not even used the term ‘doctrine of the main issues’ before.”
The conservative majority of six court judges has been skeptical of the federal agency’s authority to set national standards.
The legal struggle for EPA authority began a few years ago when the Obama administration set strict carbon limits for each state in an effort to reduce power plant emissions and urged states to comply. the limits changing to cleaner energy alternatives such as wind and solar.
The Obama administration’s clean energy plan was temporarily blocked in 2016 by the Supreme Court and then repealed in 2019 by the Trump administration, which argued that the plan exceeded EPA authority under of the Clean Air Act. He argued that the act only allowed the agency to set standards in the physical facilities of a power plant, or “inside the fence.”
The Trump administration proposed more lenient standards to regulate emissions only from existing coal steam plants, a policy called the Affordable Clean Energy Rule. The review was challenged by states and environmental groups and was eventually overturned by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Since then, there has been no EPA standard regarding carbon pollution from existing power plants.
Republican attorneys general led by West Virginia, a major coal producer, along with coal companies and industry groups, followed suit, arguing that the EPA does not have the authority to make the country’s transition to coal sources. cleaner energy and that this authority belongs to Congress. .
Lawyers representing the EPA and U.S. utility industry lobbyists rejected arguments that restricted the agency’s authority, arguing that doing so would spark lawsuits against energy suppliers.
Under Biden’s administration, the EPA has indicated that it will not attempt to resurrect the clean energy plan, but will create its own rules to regulate power plant emissions.
But Roberts, in the majority opinion, wrote: “Basically, the Clean Energy Plan essentially adopted a limit and trade scheme, or a set of state limit and trade schemes, for carbon. Congress, however, has consistently rejected proposals to amend the Clean Air Act to create such a program. “
Thursday’s decision could rule out the agency’s ability to impose a cap-and-trade system, allowing the government to set a maximum on the amount of greenhouse gas emissions released in an industry and penalize parties for violations. The parties then buy and sell the rights to exceed that limit, essentially creating a market around emissions.
This is breaking news. Check for updates again.