EPA

A deeply divided US Supreme Court dealt a major blow to President Joe Biden 's climate-change agenda, restricting the Environmental Protection Agency's ...

The White House drew support in the case from a mix of industries, including technology companies and electric utilities, as well as environmental organizations. Their appeal said the lower court ruling would let the EPA remake the US electric system, going well beyond what Congress intended when it enacted the Clean Air Act in 1970. A federal appeals court in Washington said the Trump plan was based on an overly restrictive read of the EPA’s authority. Under the Clean Power Plan, states were encouraged to shift electricity generation from higher-emitting sources, such as coal, and toward lower-emitting options, such as renewable power. He also said the administration would work with states and cities and push for congressional action. Hitting those targets will be impossible without regulations to stifle greenhouse gases from oil wells, automobiles and power plants, as well as tax incentives designed to spur clean energy, according to several analyses.

The high court said a cap on power plants' carbon dioxide emissions that forces a transition to other fuels may be a “sensible” solution to the climate ...

Since the EPA sought to regulate coal-fired power plants under the 2014 Clean Power Plan, several in Texas have shut down, as companies replaced them with plants that run on a cheaper fuel source: natural gas. “Whatever else this Court may know about, it does not have a clue about how to address climate change,” Kagan wrote. One coal plant in Texas, Martin Lake in Tatum, emitted 13.5 million metric tons of greenhouse gases in 2020, according to an analysis of EPA data by Environment Texas. That’s equal to emissions from about 3 million passenger vehicles. “Today’s ruling is one of the most significant developments in administrative law.” The legal battle had delayed attempts by the EPA to reduce greenhouse gas pollution from the coal-fired power plant industry, one of the nation’s largest sources of climate-warming emissions. “If not for this case, we probably already would’ve seen major regulations issued by the EPA on greenhouse gas emissions.” “Agencies have only those powers given to them by Congress,” Roberts wrote. The ruling may cause federal agencies beyond the EPA to narrow regulations to avoid what could now be “shaky legal ground.” “I cannot think of many things more frightening.” But eight years later, the emission targets were met anyways as coal-fired plants closed due to high costs and new competition. “Federal agencies are more likely to be challenged [in court],” added Austin, a former EPA Region 6 administrator. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton was among 17 Republican state attorneys general who sued the EPA over an Obama-era regulation known as the Clean Power Plan, which never went into effect.

The Supreme Court curbed the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to broadly regulate carbon emissions from existing power plants, a major defeat for ...

"This is about maintaining the separation of powers, not climate change." "This is another devastating decision from the Court that aims to take our country backwards," a White House official said in a statement. To avoid the worst consequences, the world must limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (it's already passed 1.1 degrees), and the only way to do that is to keep the vast majority of the Earth's remaining fossil fuel stored in the ground. West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey was the main plaintiff in this case, joined by Republican attorneys general from more than a dozen other states. The Trump administration, however, said the EPA's authority is much more narrow and that it could only target requirements aimed at making individual power plants more efficient. The Biden administration is currently working on a new rule. Scientists have become increasingly urgent in their warnings that to make headway on the climate crisis, emissions need to not only be reduced going forward, but the world needs to develop ways to also remove the greenhouse gas that's been pumped into the atmosphere in decades past. Fossil fuels in the power sector are a huge contributor to the climate crisis. Around 25% of planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions around the globe and in the US come from generating electricity, according to the EPA. And coal, the dirtiest fossil fuel, powers about 20% of US electricity. "For a century, the federal government has functioned on the assumption that Congress can broadly delegate regulatory power to executive branch agencies. And without both major investments on clean energy and strong regulations cutting emissions by the EPA, President Joe Biden has very little hope of meeting his climate goal, independent analysis shows. Roberts said that "our precedent counsels skepticism toward EPA's claim" that the law "empowers it to devise carbon emissions caps based on a generation shifting approach."

Today, in response to the Supreme Court ruling in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Administrator Michael S. Regan issued the following ...

Ambitious climate action presents a singular opportunity to ensure U.S. global competitiveness, create jobs, lower costs for families, and protect people’s health and wellbeing, especially those who’ve long suffered the burden of inaction. While I am deeply disappointed by the Supreme Court’s decision, we are committed to using the full scope of EPA’s authorities to protect communities and reduce the pollution that is driving climate change. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Administrator Michael S. Regan issued the following statement:

The Supreme Court ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) lacks the authority to issue broad regulations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from ...

The decision would seem unfavorable to a proposed rule from the Securities and Exchange Commission regarding climate disclosures, for example. Second, EPA now must go back to the drawing board on how it wants to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. The chief justice applied the “major questions doctrine,” a court precedent whereby in claiming authority on a policy with major “economic or political importance” an “agency must point to ‘clear congressional authorization.’” The Court found no such authority to justify EPA’s broad reconfiguring of the country’s electricity generation sector. The Supreme Court ruled on June 30 that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) lacked the authority to issue broad regulations to address greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions stems from another Supreme Court decision that found EPA could use the Clean Air Act (CAA) to address climate change. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.

Experts tell CNN the EPA ruling is a major setback in the country's effort to rein in the climate crisis and its deadly, costly impacts.

"Everything in the opinion is going to be used as ammunition by groups that want to challenge what the Biden administration does next, but that doesn't mean the opinion doesn't leave room for EPA to act and hopefully it acts with some speed." "While I am deeply disappointed by the Supreme Court's decision, we are committed to using the full scope of EPA's authorities to protect communities and reduce the pollution that is driving climate change," EPA administrator Michael S. Regan said in a statement. "Our lawyers will study the ruling carefully and we will find ways to move forward under federal law," a White House spokesperson said. Shifting from fossil fuels to renewables "is the most effective, efficient and lowest cost way of reducing greenhouse emissions from fossil fuel-fired power plants," Restrepo said. But cases on those issues are already circulating in the lower courts and could eventually be elevated to the Supreme Court. The EPA has publicly committed that rule by March 2024, though it could move faster. "This case by its nature provides significant constraints EPA's authority to regulate the power sector — but not other sectors of the economy" like transportation or industrial emissions. It's an expensive technology and scientists have warned that it's not on its own a significant enough solution to power plant emissions. The Supreme Court said the Clean Air Act does not give EPA broad authority to regulate planet-warming emissions from power plants. It says that the biggest issues should be decided by Congress itself, not agencies like the EPA. The Clean Power Plan was an Obama-era rule that set a goal for each state to limit carbon emissions, while letting those states determine how to meet those goals. Jenks told CNN. "This doctrine is just starting to emerge from the court.

The landmark ruling in West Virginia v. EPA found limits to EPA's ability to broadly regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants.

The justices heard two hours of oral arguments in West Virginia v. The 6-3 ruling in West Virginia v. Conservative challengers argued that EPA had overstepped its authority in issuing the carbon rule.

The case considered the Environmental Protection Agency's powers under the Clean Air Act.

“This court has obstructed E.P.A.’s effort from the beginning,” she wrote. To do so, it instructed every state to draft plans to eliminate carbon emissions from power plants by phasing out coal and increasing the generation of renewable energy. But it rejected the Trump administration’s attempt to replace that rule with what critics said was a toothless one. Last year, on the last full day of Donald J. Trump’s presidency, a federal appeals court in Washington struck down his administration’s plan to relax restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. “The E.P.A. has ample discretion in carrying out its mandate,” the decision concluded. The Supreme Court’s conservative majority is generally committed to textualism, a judicial approach that focuses on the words of the law as written rather than its larger purpose or the intentions of its drafters. In dissent, Justice Kagan wrote that the statute at issue in the case had given the agency ample authority. More broadly, the court was asked to address whether Congress must “speak with particular clarity when it authorizes executive agencies to address major political and economic questions.” “This is not the attorney general regulating medical care, or even the C.D.C. regulating landlord-tenant relations,” she wrote. “When Congress seems slow to solve problems, it may be only natural that those in the executive branch might seek to take matters into their own hands,” Justice Gorsuch wrote. “Whatever else this court may know about, it does not have a clue about how to address climate change,” she wrote. But, he added, “a decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself, or an agency acting pursuant to a clear delegation from that representative body.”

The Environmental Protection Agency cannot set fleet-wide greenhouse gas emissions limits for existing power plants under the Clean Air Act's Section 111(d) ...

Congress knows what it doesn’t and can’t know when it drafts a statute; and Congress therefore gives an expert agency the power to address issues — even significant ones — as and when they arise.” However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in January 2021 vacated that rule, saying the EPA took a too-narrow view of its authority to regulate carbon emissions from power plants. “And on this view of EPA’s authority, it could go further, perhaps forcing coal plants to ‘shift’ away virtually all of their generation — i.e., to cease making power altogether.” “In light of this Supreme Court decision, it will fall to Congress, state policymakers, and the markets to drive the transition to a clean energy economy.” “We are pleased the Supreme Court issued a decision that restricts the [EPA] from setting carbon dioxide standards for coal-fired power plants based on outside-the-fence measures,” Michelle Bloodworth, America’s Power CEO, said in a statement. They asked the Supreme Court to disallow a fleet-wide approach.

The decision created greater opportunities for business interests to challenge regulations, reflecting conservative legal theories developed to rein in ...

“If you don’t have regulations, then the only people who will benefit will be those who, with no rules, will make more money,” said Marietta Robinson, a former Obama appointee on the Consumer Product Safety Commission who teaches about administrative agencies at George Washington University’s law school. Rather, it shifts some of the power and responsibility from the agencies to Congress. Congress could even pass a law directly requiring the detailed system for reducing emissions. They have argued, for example, that the Supreme Court should end so-called Chevron deference, named for the case that established it. “In certain extraordinary cases,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote, the court needed “something more than a merely plausible textual basis” to convince it that an agency has the legal ability to issue specific regulations. They struck down a provision of the law Congress enacted to create the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that had protected its head from being fired by a president without a good cause, like misconduct. Over time, however, a new backlash began to emerge from the business community, especially in reaction to the consumer safety and environmental movements of the 1960s. His memo set out a blueprint to fund a movement to turn public opinion against regulation by equating “economic freedom” for business with individual freedom. That movement has now largely taken control of the federal judiciary after President Donald J. Trump appointed three Supreme Court justices. Such regulations may benefit the public as a whole, but can also cut into the profits of corporations and affect other narrow interests. But as complexity arose — the Industrial Revolution, banking crises, telecommunications and broadcast technology, and much more — this system began to fail. So it created specialized regulatory agencies to study and address various types of problems.

The Supreme Court's new climate change ruling is likely to hinder the Biden administration's plans to cut greenhouse gas emissions in half by the end of the ...

California Gov. Gavin Newsom said the ruling makes it even more important that his state and others continue efforts to combat the climate crisis. In both cases, the court ruled that Congress had not given federal agencies specific power to adopt the wide-ranging measures. “It’s almost as if the court needs Congress to make a new law every time a new problem emerges, which is ridiculous and dangerous,” said Georgetown University Law Professor Lisa Heinzerling, a former EPA official. the ruling makes it harder for the Biden administration to meet its ambitious goal to slow climate change, even as environmental damage attributable to global warming increases and warnings about the future grow ever more dire. She vowed to continue strong oversight over EPA. In its decision, the court limited the reach of the nation’s main anti-air pollution law that’s used to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. Biden’s struggling to make big systemic changes at home won’t impress countries such as China, India and Russia as the United States pushes them to end their dependency on coal and make other big emissions cuts. That is unlikely. The United States is the world’s biggest climate polluter over time. In the short term. “In a way, this ruling is most concerning for communities who live on the fence line of power plants, who are exposed on a daily basis to the airborne pollutants that are released with greenhouse gases, and they face the most acute exposures,” said Sabrina McCormick, associate professor of environmental and occupational health at George Washington University. “Unfortunately, the climate system doesn’t care about our politics,” said Northern Illinois climate scientist Victor Gensini, adding that the court was “essentially leaving the decision to regulate carbon dioxide and other gases to those in Congress that may not have the best interest of the planet in mind.”

Dueling sentiments defined the day for climate activists, investors and lawyers as they reacted to the Supreme Court's decision Thursday in West Virginia v.

We’re going to need the technical assistance, and we’re going to need the funding.” The target could be in jeopardy without aggressive climate action from cities, states and the federal government, Wright said. Some of that work is already going on at the city level, said Kate Wright, the executive director of Climate Mayors, a bipartisan group of nearly 500 mayors across 48 states. “But we have no time to waste. “In the next 10 years, it’s not about investing in new technology. EPA is still going to do the work of regulating greenhouse gas emissions from power plants,” said Jack Lienke, a policy adviser for the Institute for Policy Integrity at NYU law. While the federal government’s credibility could take a hit in international climate talks, momentum toward low-carbon power might no longer hinge on federal regulation, they argued. Dueling sentiments defined the day for climate activists, investors and lawyers as they reacted to the Supreme Court’s decision Thursday in West Virginia v. “We will have further fights about those options.” (The Major Questions Doctrine deals with just how much authority regulatory agencies have.) On one hand, many said they are gutted by the Supreme Court’s ruling. “EPA still has tools to work with.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday dealt a major blow to the Environmental Protection Agency's power to regulate carbon emissions that cause climate change.

You may click on “Your Choices” below to learn about and use cookie management tools to limit use of cookies when you visit NPR’s sites. If you click “Agree and Continue” below, you acknowledge that your cookie choices in those tools will be respected and that you otherwise agree to the use of cookies on NPR’s sites. NPR’s sites use cookies, similar tracking and storage technologies, and information about the device you use to access our sites (together, “cookies”) to enhance your viewing, listening and user experience, personalize content, personalize messages from NPR’s sponsors, provide social media features, and analyze NPR’s traffic.

The far-right conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court handed a major victory to domestic fossil energy interests this week, when it ruled that the ...

After the EPA proposed the Clean Power Plan in 2015, power companies, other fossil energy stakeholders and their Republican allies in state governments, including West Virginia, immediately took the EPA to court. Wade. Nevertheless, the decarbonization movement is one area in which their attempt to flex power without principle is doomed to fail. She is currently Deputy Director of Public Information for the County of Union, New Jersey. Views expressed here are her own and do not necessarily reflect agency policy. During the Trump administration, the EPA dropped the Clean Power Plan and proposed a much less ambitious approach called the Affordable Clean Energy rule. As a result, the U.S. renewable energy industry has grown exponentially in just the past seven years. Business leaders also began to stir the renewable energy pot, recognizing that their ability to compete both domestically and globally was at stake. She is a former Deputy Director of Public Affairs of the New York City Department of Environmental Protection, and author of books and articles on recycling and other conservation themes. Influential business-led efforts like the Renewable Energy Buyers Association were up and running all through the Trump administration. This “generation shifting” element was the heart of the Obama-era Clean Power Plan. The ripple effect could spin out to other federal agencies and limit their ability to make rules on leading issues without specific direction from Congress. To be clear, the 6-3 conservative majority decision in West Virginia v. Coal, oil and gas fans may want to keep that bubbly on ice, though.

A hefty majority of likely voters dissent from the Supreme Court's latest ruling on climate action.

Its independent engineering experience covers all phases of the project lifecycle, from feasibility through construction to operations, and all stages of the transaction. Natural Power is a global consultancy that supports its clients to deliver a wide range of renewable energy projects. Canary thanks Natural Power for its support of this feature.

The Supreme Court ruling limited the EPA's authority to rein in emissions. But it left the agency some room to address climate change.

“Congress would just not be able to address the types of problems that have to be addressed on the timelines they need to be addressed.” “It gives extraordinary power to the judges,” Lorenzen said of Thursday’s ruling, adding that the test of what fits the doctrine is hazy. “This is kind of a shot across the bow from the court, saying, ‘Don’t try anything too big.’” “It takes a while to unpack why, but it’s just as much a pulling back of that rug,” she said about Thursday's decision. “But it is not plausible that Congress gave EPA the authority to adopt on its own such a regulatory scheme.” “It’s very much like the old test for pornography,” he said, invoking Justice Potter Stewart's 1964 comment about what is obscene. “Whatever else this court may know about, it does not have a clue about how to address climate change,” she wrote. “The transformation is on.” “I cannot think of many things more frightening.” “The grid we have in 2022 looks nothing like that grid.” “This is all about a Clean Power Plan that doesn’t really exist anymore,” he said, adding that the U.S. hit the emissions goals of the never-enacted plan well ahead of schedule. “EPA has lots of tools,” Lorenzen said.

The ruling opens the door to more litigation, however, which could help the fossil fuel industry delay moves to decarbonize the economy. In the end, cheaper and ...

"I don't think this decision will be as important for the electric industry in the long run as many people believe. "So yes, EPA can regulate coal itself, which will make coal (even) more expensive and might lead some companies to exit coal as a result. "The compliance costs are too tough to handle for major facilities," Gilbert told CNBC. "More importantly, of course, this isn't the end here. All they are banking on is anything that helps delay the inevitable. Justice Elena Kagan wrote an excoriating dissent arguing that it's dangerous to take any power away from the EPA just when the United States — and much of the world — is missing its decarbonization targets. Nonetheless, while the court limited the EPA's authority, it did not render the agency impotent to address carbon emissions. "The basic and consequential tradeoffs involved in such a choice are ones that Congress would likely have intended for itself." "On the other hand, the fossil industry — coal interests, really — knows that they are losing the war. By regulating such massive components of the economy as how power is generated, the EPA was overreaching, the ruling said. Yet the Court today prevents congressionally authorized agency action to curb power plants' carbon dioxide emissions. But the EPA and state governments still have many tools in their arsenal.

West Virginia did not overturn Massachusetts, which in 2007 recognized greenhouse gases as “air pollutants” under the Clean Air Act and that states can sue EPA ...

“And here in the West Virginia case, they found that what the Obama EPA was trying to do in the Clean Power Plan went too far.” It is well-established that greenhouse gas emissions are air pollutants subject to regulation by EPA and the states, he said. EPA, the Supreme Court cabined the agency’s authority by finding that its regulation of vehicle emissions did not automatically trigger permitting requirements for stationary sources. “And I don’t mean that in a good way,” she added. The Obama administration had taken that approach in the Clean Power Plan, which was put on hold by the Supreme Court in 2016 and never actually took effect. Kagan rebuked her conservative colleagues who formed the six-member majority in West Virginia v.

But it isn't as sweeping as Democrats and other supporters of climate action feared — it doesn't remove EPA's basic ability to regulate carbon emissions, and ...

"We believe that this proposal ensures long term policy certainty around recycling and packaging to help create a circular economy and avoids a costly and disruptive ballot initiative," the California Chamber of Commerce said in a statement. A nudge in the form of a stricter ballot initiative that scared them into coming to the table. But product stewardship advocates who have been fighting for this kind of regulation for years are thrilled: "This is a very, very big bill. Lawmakers are already planning cleanup legislation for later in the year. But they held their noses and withdrew the initiative as agreed: SB 54 sets up an "extended producer responsibility" organization that will be in charge of making sure all single-use plastic packaging and foodware is made out of recyclable or compostable materials by 2032. And it won't halt the power sector's shift to renewable energy, which has been happening without a federal mandate. “We will be standing by at the point making sure that doesn’t happen.” [Note: The SEC is an independent agency, rather than part of an administration.] EPA." 11 a.m. July 11 — Brookings Metro holds a virtual event on "State legislators and the future of transportation." July 5 — The Center for Strategic and International Studies holds a virtual event to discuss the book "On Dangerous Ground: America's Century in the South China Sea." 9:30 a.m. And...it could be worse for EPA's ability to address climate change, all things considered.

The Supreme Court limited the ways in which the EPA could regulate greenhouse gas pollution from power plants, jeopardizing President Biden's goal for an ...

You may click on “Your Choices” below to learn about and use cookie management tools to limit use of cookies when you visit NPR’s sites. If you click “Agree and Continue” below, you acknowledge that your cookie choices in those tools will be respected and that you otherwise agree to the use of cookies on NPR’s sites. NPR’s sites use cookies, similar tracking and storage technologies, and information about the device you use to access our sites (together, “cookies”) to enhance your viewing, listening and user experience, personalize content, personalize messages from NPR’s sponsors, provide social media features, and analyze NPR’s traffic.