- Summary
- Companies
- Law firm
- Power of Conservative Judges 6-3 sentence; dissent of the liberals
- The ruling limits the EPA’s ability to regulate emissions from power plants
- Biden pledges to tackle climate change despite the ruling
WASHINGTON, June 30 (Reuters) – U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday imposed limits on federal government authority to issue comprehensive regulations to reduce carbon emissions from power plants in a ruling that undermines President Joe Biden’s plans to deal with climate change and could limit several agencies. on other topics.
Court ruling 6-3 limited 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, with the three Liberals disagreeing.
Register now for FREE and unlimited access to Reuters.com
Sign up
Biden called the ruling “another devastating decision aimed at turning our country back.”
“While this decision runs the risk of damaging our nation’s ability to keep the air clean and combat climate change, I will not give in to using my legal authorities to protect public health and deal with the climate crisis.” , Biden said in a statement.
The Democratic president said he directed his legal team to work with the Justice Department and affected agencies to review the ruling and find ways in accordance with federal law to protect itself from pollution, including the emissions they cause. the climate change.
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 of the court has shown skepticism towards an expansive federal regulatory authority. Conservative legal activists have long advocated reducing the agency’s power in what has been called 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 does not plan to maintain, 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 Trump administration intended to supplant former Democratic President Barack Obama’s clean energy plan that forced major reductions in the energy industry’s carbon emissions. In 2016, the Supreme Court blocked the implementation of the Obama plan, which used Section 111 to stimulate a shift in coal-fired power generation to cleaner energy sources, without ruling on its legality.
Amanda Shafer Berman, of Crowell & Moring’s law firm, a senior environmental lawyer for Obama’s Justice Department, said the ruling was “approximately the best the EPA could have expected given the current composition of the court.” Berman said the EPA can now proceed to issue a new rule regulating carbon dioxide emissions from power plants “albeit in a more limited way than expected” under Obama’s plan.
Thursday’s ruling was based on what is called the legal doctrine of “main questions” which 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 U.S. Supreme Court building is seen in Washington, USA, on June 26, 2022. REUTERS / Elizabeth Frantz
Read more
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, it will hurt the administration’s ability to curb emissions from the electricity sector, about a quarter of U.S. greenhouse gases.
“FEDERAL EXCESS”
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. 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 an energy transition nationwide might be reasonable, “it is not plausible that Congress would give the EPA the authority to adopt this scheme on its own. regulator “.
Writing in disagreement, Liberal Judge Elena Kagan noted that the court chose to obstruct Biden’s climate agenda before his administration even issued its rule.
“The limits that the majority (of the court) now places on the authority of the EPA face the statute that Congress wrote,” Kagan said, adding that the court “deprives the EPA. of the power required – and of the power granted – to curb the emission of the greenhouse effect “. gases “.
Kagan said the court has a clear goal: “To prevent agencies from doing important work, even though that is what Congress directed.”
Democrat-led states and major power companies such as Consolidated Edison Inc (ED.N), Exelon Corp (EXC.O) and PG&E Corp (PCG.N) sided with the Biden administration, as did ‘Edison Electric Institute, an investor-owned utility. trade group.
The Biden administration wants the U.S. electricity sector to decarbonize by 2035. The United States, just behind China in greenhouse gas emissions, is a key player in efforts to combat climate change in world scale.
Thursday’s decision came on the last day of sentencing for the court’s current nine-month term.
Register now for FREE and unlimited access to Reuters.com
Sign up
Report by Lawrence Hurley; Additional report by Valerie Volcovici; Editing by Will Dunham
Our standards: the principles of trust of Thomson Reuters.
Lawrence Hurley
Thomson Reuters
Washington-based reporter covering legal matters focusing on the U.S. Supreme Court, winner of the Pulitzer Prize for a team project on how the defense of qualified immunity protects police officers accused of excessive force.