Supreme Court Considers Limiting EPA’s Ability to Address Climate


WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court’s conservative majority Monday questioned the extent of the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to regulate carbon emissions from power plants, suggesting the court could deal a sharp blow to the Biden administration’s efforts to address climate change.

The questioning during the two-hour debate was mostly technical, and a few conservative judges didn’t hold out. But those who did were skeptical that Congress intended to give the agency what they said was enormous power to determine national economic policy.

There seemed to be little appetite for an argument put forward by the Biden administration and environmental groups: West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. Four cases before the judges, including 20-1530, were not ripe for verdict because there are no verdicts. in place of editing. They said the court should wait to address concrete questions rather than decide on hypothetical questions.

Attorney General Elizabeth B. Prelogar said the administration is working on a new regulation that courts can consider once published.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Judge Stephen G. Breyer stated that they do not think the Supreme Court need wait.

Much of the argument centered on whether the Clean Air Act allowed the agency to make sweeping regulations across the energy sector, and more broadly, how clearly Congress should empower executive agencies to address important political and economic issues.

Last year, on the last full day of Donald J. Trump’s presidency, a federal appeals court in Washington shot government’s plan to relax restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. The Trump administration said the Clean Air Act clearly limits the measures the agency can use “measures that may be deployed in a building, structure, facility or installation.”

A split three-judge panel of the Court, the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, ruled that the Trump administration’s plan, dubbed the Affordable Clean Energy Rule, was based on a “fundamental misconfiguration” of the relevant law. by “a series of tortured misreadings”.

“The EPA has broad discretion in carrying out its mandate,” the resolution said. “However, he cannot escape his responsibility by imagining new limitations that the plain language of the law does not explicitly require.”

The panel did not reinstate the Clean Energy Plan, a 2015 Obama-era arrangement that would force utilities to move away from coal and switch to renewable energy to reduce emissions. However, he rejected an attempt by the Trump administration to replace that rule with what critics say is toothless.

The appeals court’s decision also paved the way for the Biden administration to impose stronger restrictions.

The Obama-era plan aimed to reduce emissions from the energy sector by 32 percent by 2030, compared to 2005 levels. To do this, he instructed each state to draw up plans to eliminate carbon emissions from power plants by phasing out coal and increasing renewable energy production.

The Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan never went into effect. it was Blocked by the Supreme Court in 2016has effectively ruled that states do not have to abide by it until a series of lawsuits from conservative states and the coal industry are resolved. That decision and subsequent changes in Supreme Court membership shifting to the right have made environmental groups wary of what the court can do in climate change cases.

On Monday, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an expert body convened by the United Nations, released the most comprehensive review to date. threats posed by global warming to homes, human health, livelihoods and natural ecosystems around the world. The 195 government-approved report found that the dangers from climate change are emerging greater and faster than those affected previously, and that humanity may struggle to adapt to the consequences if greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced rapidly over the next few decades.

“Further delays in coherent global action will miss a short and fast-closing window of opportunity to secure a viable and sustainable future for all,” the report said.

Brad Plumer contributing reporting



Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *