On Thursday, the US Supreme Court imposed limits on the federal government’s authority to issue regulations to reduce carbon emissions from power plants.
o The US Supreme Court imposed limits on the federal government’s authority to issue extensive regulations to reduce carbon emissions from power plantsÂ
o The ruling threatens President Joe Biden’s plans to tackle climate change and can constrain various agencies on similar issues.
Supreme Court curbs Federal agency
The US Supreme Court imposes curbs on the federal government’s authority to issue regulations on the reduction of carbon emissions from power plants in a ruling, affecting President Joe Biden’s plans to tackle climate change and constraining various agencies as well. The court’s ruling limits the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from existing coal and gas based power plants under the landmark Clean Air Act anti-pollution law. Biden’s administration is currently working on new regulations.
The court’s six conservatives were in the majority in the decision with the three liberals dissenting. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the decision that Biden now calls another devastating decision that takes America backwards. He stated that even though the decision risks damaging the nation’s ability to keep the air clean and combat climate change, he will not back down from using all power vested in him to protect public health and tackle the climate crisis.
The President said that he has directed his legal team to work with the Justice Department and other agencies to review the ruling and find ways to protect against pollution and emissions that cause climate change. The ruling is set to have implications beyond the EPA as it raises questions about any major decisions made by federal agencies. The Court’s conservative majority holds skepticism toward expansive federal regulatory authority and Conservatives have long advocated for reducing federal power in what’s being hailed a “war on the administrative state.”
The Justices overturned a 2021 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that had struck down Republican former President Donald Trump’s Affordable Clean Energy rule. That regulation, which Biden doesn’t plan to keep, would impose limits on a Clean Air Act provision called Section 111. Meanwhile, Trump’s rule was meant to supplant former Democratic President Barack Obama’s Clean Power Plan for major reductions in carbon emissions from the power industry.Â
The Supreme Court in 2016 blocked Obama’s plan, which used Section 111 to spur an electric-based shift from coal to cleaner energy sources. Amanda Shafer Berman of law firm Crowell & Moring, a senior environmental attorney in Obama’s Justice Department, said that the ruling was the best EPA could have hoped for given the current composition of the court. Berman said the EPA will now proceed to issue a new rule that regulates power plant carbon dioxide emissions in a more limited way.
The new ruling is based on the “major questions” legal doctrine that requires intense congressional authorization for actions of broad importance and societal impact. The justices in January appeared to embrace that theory when it blocked the Biden administration’s vaccine-or-test policy for larger businesses, a key element of its plan to combat the Covid-19 pandemic.
The court’s enabling of this doctrine sends a signal that the justices will be a major obstacle to federal agencies seeking to implement policies of national importance. The decision will constrain the EPA’s ability to issue any regulations on power plants that push for a national shift in energy policy toward renewable sources.Â
Criticism against EPA
A group of Republican-led U.S. states led by major coal producer West Virginia asked the justices to limit the EPA’s ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants. West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey called the ruling a “huge victory against federal overreach and the excesses of the administrative state.” Chief Justice Roberts wrote that while capping carbon emissions to force a nationwide energy transition might be sensible it is not likely that Congress gives EPA the authority for such a regulatory scheme on its own.
Opposing the move, Justice Elena Kagan stated that the court stalled Biden’s climate agenda before his administration even issued its rule, stating that the limits the court is depriving EPA of the power needed to curb the emission of greenhouse gasses. Kagan said the court is preventing agencies from doing their work that Congress directed them to do.
Democratic-led states and major power companies including Consolidated Edison Inc (ED.N), Exelon Corp (EXC.O) and PG&E Corp (PCG.N) sided with Biden’s administration, as did the Edison Electric Institute, an investor-owned utility trade group. Biden’s administration wants the U.S. power sector decarbonized by 2035. The United States is a major player in efforts to combat climate change on a global basis. Thursday’s decision came on the final day of rulings for the court’s nine-month term.
