WASHINGTON (AP) – In a blow to the fight against climate change, the Supreme Court on Thursday limited the way in which the nation’s basic law against air pollution can be used to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.
By a 6-3 vote, with a majority of conservatives, the court said the Clean Air Act does not give the Environmental Protection Agency broad powers to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants that contribute to global warming.
The court ruling could complicate the administration’s plans to combat climate change. His proposal to regulate emissions from the plant is expected by the end of the year.
President Joe Biden aims to halve the country’s greenhouse gas emissions by the end of the decade and to have a zero-emission energy sector by 2035. Power plants provide approximately 30% of carbon dioxide production.
“Limiting carbon dioxide emissions to a level that will force a nationwide transition from using coal to power could be a sensible solution to the crisis of the day,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in a statement to the court.
But Roberts wrote that the Clean Air Act does not give the EPA the power to do so, and that Congress must speak clearly on the issue.
“A decision of this magnitude and consequences depends on Congress itself or on an agency acting in accordance with a clear delegation from that representative body,” he wrote.
Disagreeing, Judge Elena Kagan wrote that the decision deprived the EPA of the powers Congress had given it to meet “the most pressing environmental challenge of our time.”
Kagan said the stakes were high. She said: “The court appoints – instead of Congress or the expert agency – the decision-maker on climate policy. I can’t think of much worse things. “
Judges heard arguments in the case the same day a UN commission report warned that the effects of climate change were about to worsen, likely to make the world sicker, hungrier, poorer and more dangerous. in the following years.
The power plant case has a long and complicated history, beginning with the Obama administration’s clean energy plan. This plan would require countries to reduce emissions from electricity generation, mainly by relocating from coal-fired power plants.
But this plan never came into force. Acting in a lawsuit filed by West Virginia and others, the Supreme Court blocked it in 2016 by 5-4 votes, with the Conservatives in the majority.
When the plan was withheld, the court battle for him continued. But after President Donald Trump took office, the EPA canceled the Obama-era plan. The agency claims that its power to reduce carbon emissions is limited and it has developed a new plan that has sharply reduced the role of the federal government in the matter.
New York, 21 other predominantly democratic states, the District of Columbia and some of the country’s largest cities have sued for Trump’s plan. The Federal Court of Appeal in Washington ruled against both the repeal and the new plan, and its ruling left nothing in effect until the new administration drafted a new policy.
In addition to the unusual nature of the Supreme Court’s involvement, the cuts sought in Obama’s 2030 plan have already been achieved through the market-driven closure of hundreds of coal-fired power plants.
Power plant operators serving 40 million people have called on the court to keep companies’ flexibility to reduce emissions while maintaining a reliable service. Well-known companies, including Apple, Amazon, Google, Microsoft and Tesla, also supported the administration.
Nineteen primarily Republican-led states and coal companies fought in the Supreme Court against the EPA’s broad powers to regulate carbon production.
___
Associated Press authors Matthew Daly and Katie Busewitz of New York contributed to this report.
Add Comment