The U.S. Supreme Court has recently issued a ruling that restricts the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate carbon emissions from power plants, which are the largest source of greenhouse gases in the country. The decision, which was made by a 6-3 vote along ideological lines, has significant implications for the Biden administration’s efforts to combat climate change and meet its international commitments.
The case involved a challenge to the Clean Power Plan (CPP), a regulation adopted by the Obama administration in 2015 that set state-by-state limits on carbon emissions from existing power plants and encouraged a shift to cleaner energy sources. The CPP was blocked by lower courts and never took effect, but it was seen as a key component of the U.S. pledge to reduce its emissions under the Paris Agreement.
The Supreme Court ruled that the EPA exceeded its statutory authority under the Clean Air Act when it adopted the CPP, which aimed to transform the nation’s electricity sector. The court said that such a major and novel regulation requires clear and specific authorization from Congress, which was not provided by the existing law. The court also rejected the EPA’s argument that it had discretion to interpret ambiguous provisions of the Clean Air Act in light of its expertise and policy goals.
The ruling is a setback for the Biden administration, which had hoped to revive and strengthen the CPP as part of its ambitious agenda to address climate change. The administration will now have to rely on other tools and strategies, such as executive orders, subsidies, incentives, and diplomacy, to achieve its emissions targets. The ruling also raises questions about the legal validity of other regulations that seek to address new and complex problems using old and general statutes.
The ruling was welcomed by industry groups and Republican-led states that opposed the CPP as an unlawful overreach by the federal government that would harm their economies and energy security. They argued that the regulation would impose costly and burdensome requirements on power plants and force them to close or switch to more expensive sources of energy. They also claimed that the regulation would have little impact on global warming, since other countries, such as China and India, are still increasing their emissions.
The ruling was criticized by environmental groups and Democratic-led states that supported the CPP as a necessary and lawful response to the urgent threat of climate change. They argued that the regulation was based on sound science and reasonable interpretations of the Clean Air Act, which gives the EPA broad authority to protect public health and welfare from air pollution. They also claimed that the regulation would have multiple benefits, such as reducing premature deaths, improving air quality, creating jobs, and enhancing U.S. leadership on climate action.
