- Summary
- Companies
- Law firms
- Conservative judges rule a 6-3 decision; the liberals disagree
- The decision limits the EPA’s ability to regulate power plant emissions
- Biden vowed to tackle climate change despite the decision
WASHINGTON, June 30 (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday imposed restrictions on the federal government’s power to issue comprehensive regulations to reduce carbon emissions from power plants in a ruling that undermines President Joe Biden’s plans to tackle climate change and to restrict various agencies to other matters.
Court ruling 6-3 limited the powers of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from existing coal and gas-fired power plants under the remarkable anti-pollution law of the Clean Air Act. The Biden administration is currently working on new regulations.
The court’s six Conservatives were the majority in a decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts, with the three Liberals disagreeing.
Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com
I’m registering
Biden called the decision “another devastating decision aimed at bringing our country back.”
“While this decision risks damaging our nation’s ability to maintain clean air and fight climate change, I will not resign myself to using my legitimate bodies to protect public health and tackle the climate crisis,” Biden said. in a statement.
The Democrat president said he had directed his legal team to work with the Justice Department and the agencies concerned to review the decision and find ways under federal pollution protection law, including emissions that cause climate change.
The decision is likely to have consequences outside the EPA, as it raises new legal issues regarding all major decisions taken by federal agencies. The court’s conservative majority has expressed skepticism about the expansive federal regulator. Conservative legal activists have long advocated reducing the power of agencies in what is called a “war against the administrative state.”
Judges overturned a 2021 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia that overturned former Republican President Donald Trump’s affordable clean energy rule. This regulation, which the Biden administration does not plan to maintain, will impose restrictions on a provision in the Clean Air Act called Section 111, which allows the EPA to regulate emissions from existing power plants.
The Trump administration aimed to displace former Democratic Party President Barack Obama’s clean energy plan, which calls for a significant reduction in carbon emissions from the energy industry. In 2016, the Supreme Court blocked the implementation of Obama’s plan, which uses section 111 to stimulate the transition of electricity production from coal to cleaner energy sources, without ruling on its legality.
Amanda Shaffer Berman of Crowell & Moring, a senior environmental attorney at the Obama Department of Justice, said the decision was “the best the EPA can hope for given the current composition of the court.” Berman said the EPA could now issue a new rule that regulates carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, “albeit in a more limited way than expected,” according to Obama’s plan.
Thursday’s decision is based on the so-called “basic issues” legal doctrine, which requires explicit permission from Congress to act on issues of major importance and public impact. Judges in January seemed to embrace the theory when it blocked the Biden administration’s policy on vaccines or tests for larger companies, a key element of its plan to fight the COVID-19 pandemic.
The U.S. Supreme Court building is on display in Washington, DC, USA, June 26, 2022. REUTERS / Elizabeth Frantz
Read more
The court’s reference to this doctrine sends a signal that judges will be a major obstacle to federal agencies seeking to pursue broad policies of national importance.
The decision will limit EPA’s ability to issue any regulations on power plants that call for an ambitious national change in renewable energy policy. As such, it will limit the administration’s ability to limit energy sector emissions, about a quarter of the U.S.’s greenhouse gases.
“FEDERAL PREVIOUS IMAGE”
A group of Republican-led U.S. states, led by major coal producer West Virginia, has asked judges to limit the EPA’s ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants. Other contenders include coal companies and coal companies. Coal is among the fuels with the largest amount of greenhouse gases.
West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrissey called the decision “a huge victory against excessive federal crime and administrative state excesses.”
Roberts writes that while limiting carbon emissions to a level that would force a national energy transition may be reasonable, “it is not plausible for Congress to give the EPA the power to adopt such a regulatory scheme on its own.”
Writing in disagreement, Liberal Judge Elena Kagan noted that the court had chosen to disrupt Biden’s climate program before his administration even issued its rule.
“The restrictions that the majority (of the court) now places on the powers of the EPA fly in the face of the statutes that Congress has written,” Kagan said, adding that the court “deprives the EPA of the necessary power – and power – to limit emissions. greenhouse gases. “
Kagan said the court has a clear goal: “Preventing agencies from doing important work, even though that’s what Congress has ordered.”
Democrat-led states and major energy companies, including Consolidated Edison Inc (ED.N), Exelon Corp (EXC.O) and PG&E Corp (PCG.N), sided with the Biden administration, as well as the Edison Electric Institute, owned by of an investor. trade group.
The Biden administration wants the US energy sector to be decarbonised by 2035. The United States, behind only China in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, is a major player in global climate change efforts.
The decision on Thursday came on the last day of decisions on the court’s current nine-month term.
Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com
I’m registering
Report by Lawrence Hurley; Additional reports by Valeri Volkovichi; Edited by Will Dunham
Our standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
Lawrence Hurley
Thomson Reuters
A Washington-based reporter covering legal issues with a focus 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.
Add Comment