WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday limited the Environmental Protection Agency’s options to limit greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants, one of the most important environmental decisions in years.
In a setback for the Biden administration’s efforts to fight climate change, the court said in a 6-3 decision that the EPA does not have the authority to shift the country’s energy production from power plants coal to cleaner sources, including solar and wind power. Powerful.
“Capping carbon dioxide emissions at a level that will force a nationwide transition away from using coal to generate electricity may be a ‘sense solution to the current crisis.’ implausible that Congress gave the EPA the power to adopt such a regulatory scheme on its own initiative,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. “A decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself, or an agency acting pursuant to clear delegation from that representative body,” Roberts said.
Future measures to tackle carbon dioxide pollution should be limited to restrictions on specific coal-fired power plants, instead of pushing utilities to switch from coal to renewable energy sources, according to the ruling. said.
In her dissent, Judge Elena Kagan wrote that the court’s decision “stripping the Environmental Protection Agency of the power that Congress has given it to respond to ‘the most pressing environmental challenge of our time.’
Kagan, who was joined in her dissent by Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, said the court majority’s limits on the EPA’s authority “run counter to the statute written by Congress.” The majority say it’s just not plausible.” that Congress allowed the EPA to regulate power plant emissions through generational transfer. But that’s exactly what Congress did when it broadly authorized the EPA in Section 111 to select the “best emission control system” for power plants.
An EPA spokesperson said the agency is reviewing the ruling and “commits to using the full reach of its existing authorities to protect public health and significantly reduce environmental pollution, which is consistent to the growth of the clean energy economy,” the spokesperson said.
In a statement, the White House called the decision “a devastating new decision by the court that seeks to set our country back.”
“Our attorneys will carefully review the decision and we will find ways to move forward under federal law,” the White House said. “At the same time, Congress must also act to accelerate America’s path to a clean, healthy, and secure energy future.”
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, DN.Y., blasted the decision, which he said could have far-reaching implications.
“Like last week’s dangerously flawed and abhorrent rulings on gun safety and abortion, today’s hardline MAGA court ruling in West Virginia v. EPA will cause more needless deaths – in this case to cause more pollution that will exacerbate the climate crisis and less clean and safe air and water,” he said in a statement. “But make no mistake – the consequences of this decision will ripple through the entire federal government, from food and drug regulation to our nation’s health care system, all of which will put American lives at risk.”
The case came to court in an unusual posture. The challengers – a group of red states and coal companies – were not fighting any specific rules. Instead, they were challenging a federal appeals court ruling that the EPA could issue the kind of regulations they objected to.
The legal battle began under the Obama administration, when the EPA released a plan to reduce carbon dioxide pollution from power plants by allowing their operators to earn credits to generate more electricity from low emission sources. A coalition of states and coal companies has sued, saying the Clean Air Act gives the government the power to restrict pollution from specific power plants, not force power companies to switch to different production methods.
After the Supreme Court blocked the rule’s enforcement, the EPA scrapped it and instead, under the Trump administration, proposed standards that would only regulate emissions from individual power plants. This relaxed restriction on greenhouse gases was later challenged by a different range of states and a coalition of environmental groups.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia struck down the Trump administration’s revised rule. Therefore, no EPA restrictions currently apply to carbon pollution from existing power plants. But the appeals court ruling left the door open for the Biden administration to resurrect the EPA’s earlier approach, involving a shift to cleaner sources.
It is this possibility that the coal companies and the red states were asking the Supreme Court to prevent.
The North American Coal Corp. told the court that the EPA was seeking the power “to effectively dictate not only the technical details of the operation of a coal plant, but also the general policy of how the nation generates its electricity.”
But several major utilities, including Pacific Gas & Electric Co. and Consolidated Edison, sided with the Justice Department.
The EPA’s ability to regulate in this area “is critical for power companies,” they said. “For years, power companies have used emissions trading, generation transfer and other measures to reduce emissions while keeping the lights on at a reasonable cost.”
nbcnews Gt