BREAKING NEWS: The Supreme Court Limits the EPA's Ability to Regulate on Climate Issues

Picture Source: Wikipedia

Today, the Supreme Court ruled to limit the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) power to curb the emissions of greenhouse gases. The question put before the court today was whether the Clean Air Act allowed the E.P.A. to issue sweeping regulations across the power sector.  The 6-3 ruling dictates that climate-related regulations must show “clear congressional authorization”, which limits the EPA’s ability to regulate in a time when Congress is facing significant challenges and internal conflict.

Some specific outcomes of this ruling include allowance for regulations that focus narrowly on controlling pollution from smoke stacks, but restriction of broader rules that could set state-by-state targets for pollution and force a change to statewide fuel mix. In today’s decision, the Supreme Court curtailed the EPA’s ability to regulate the energy sector and completely ruled out ambitious approaches like cap-and-trade programs.

Official Reactions

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion for the conservative majority, and stated "Our precedent counsels skepticism toward EPA's claim that the law empowers it to devise carbon emissions caps based on a generation shifting approach."[1]

Regarding the decision, Justice Elena Kagan wrote her opinion on the ruling "Today, the court strips the EPA of the power Congress gave it to respond to the most pressing environmental challenge of our time. ... It deprives EPA of the power needed—and the power granted—to curb the emission of greenhouse gasses."

She wasn’t the only one who stated her disappointment. Democratic Representative Raúl Grijalva of Arizona, who chairs the House Natural Resources Committee , expressed his ominous view of the matter stating the court has "sentenced our planet to death."

West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey was the main plaintiff in this case, stating that this ruling wasn’t about climate change but rather the separation of powers. “We are pleased this case returned the power to decide one of the major environmental issues of the day to the right place to decide it: the U.S. Congress, comprised of those elected by the people to serve the people," he said. "This is about maintaining the separation of powers, not climate change."

Outside of the supreme court, the US Department of Health and Human Services Secretary, Xavier Becerra said that “[the ruling is] a public health disaster." [2]

Democratic Sen. Ed Markey, who proposed the Green New Deal, said that the decision “lets polluters turn back the clock on fifty years of reduced pollution and improved air quality all across the country…The result of this dangerous decision is an EPA that is undermined in its ability to protect the public."[3]

Richard J. Lazarus, an environmental law professor, commented on the ruling stating "By insisting that Congress must specifically authorize significant rules at a time when the justices know that Congress is effectively dysfunctional, the court threatens to upend the national government's ability to safeguard the public health and welfare." The court, he added, is taking these "dire" steps "at the very moment when the United States, and all nations, are facing our greatest environmental challenge of all: climate change."

The History

The Clean Air Act was enacted in 1970, and directed the newly-established EPA to draft and periodically update national standards to regulate emissions known to endanger human health such as carbon monoxide, ground-level ozone, nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide. It is worthwhile to note that the Clean Air Act does not explicitly direct the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, rather it more broadly directs the agency to regulate pollutants that endanger human health.

In 2007, the Supreme Court ordered the EPA to determine if carbon dioxide was an air pollutant subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act, and in 2009 the agency concluded that it did.

President Obama, after failing to enact climate legislation through congress, turned to the Clean Air Act and the EPA to combat climate change by regulating power plants. Under Obama’s plan, states would have been required to reduce their pollution in the most effective way, including by switching from coal power to more solar and wind power. However, in February 2016, the court issued an order on a 5-4 vote that blocked Obama’s plan from taking effect.

The Trump administration then decided Obama’s plan exceeded the EPA’s authority. The Trump administration rolled back more than 100 policies focused on the environment such as the Clean Power Plan, Endangered Species Act, Coal Ash Rule, and Mercury and Air Toxin Standards.

Upon taking office, the Biden administration announced that it planned to create a new set of regulations to reduce pollution from power plants. At this announcement, West Virginia and 18 other Republican-controlled states urged the Supreme Court to clarify the law.

That set the stage for today’s ruling.

---

[1] https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/30/politics/supreme-court-climate-change-epa-regulations/index.html

[2] https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/30/politics/supreme-court-climate-change-epa-regulations/index.html

[3] https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/30/politics/supreme-court-climate-change-epa-regulations/index.html

[4] https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2022-06-30/supreme-court-rules-for-coal-producing-states-limits-epas-power-to-fight-climate-change