In a ruling that will have wide-ranging effects on the government’s ability to regulate climate standards through administration policy without congressional authorization, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the emissions reductions imposed by the EPA in the Clean Power Plan exceeded their authority.
The Supreme Court on Thursday limited the Environmental Protection Agency’s power to fight climate change.
The case involved how far the federal government could go in regulating greenhouse gas emissions from power plants.
The court held that Congress did not grant EPA the authority under the Clean Air Act to devise emissions caps based on the “generation shifting approach” the agency took in the Clean Power Plan, with Chief Justice John Roberts writing for the 6-3 conservative majority.
Roberts wrote that the only question before the court was “whether the ‘best system of emission reduction’ identified by EPA in the Clean Power Plan was within the authority granted to the Agency in Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act. For thereasons given, the answer is no.”
He wrote, “… our precedent counsels skepticism toward EPA’s claim … To overcome that skepticism, the Government must — under the major questions doctrine — point to “clear congressional authorization” to regulate in that manner.
“…Capping carbon dioxide emissions at a level that will force a nationwide transition away from the use of coal to generate electricity may be a sensible ‘solution to the crisis of the day.’ But it is not plausible that Congress gave EPA the authority to adopt on its own such a regulatory scheme in Section 111(d) [of the Clean Air Act],” Roberts wrote. “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 three liberal justices dissented, with Justice Elena Kagan writing, “Today, the Court strips the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of the power Congress gave it to respond to “the most pressing environmental challenge of our time.”
Read the Supreme Court’s opinion on West Virginia v EPA for yourself here:
West Virginia v EPS
I haven’t read through all the details yet, but it appears to be pretty close to what I predicted last week: Roberts wrote it and even though Chevron isn’t mentioned, it clearly narrows Chevron. Much the same way that Casey and subsequent cases kept narrowing Roe. And Gorsuch wrote the dissent, asserting they should have gone farther.
Now that we have reached the point that the EPA is not allowed to force electricity generation away from fossil fuels, and Congress appears completely unable (or unwilling) to, I will be interested to see how this plays out in different parts of the country. My state has a legal requirement to reach 100% renewable/storage by 2035. My local power authority is attempting to reach that by 2030, and is spending money and making regional deals to get there. I know I’ve probably said this before, but if you asked me to make a list of what steps I thought the authority would need to take to get to 100%, they’re checking off all of my boxes.Report
They continue to make stuff up and call it originalism.Report
The Republicans and their stolen Supreme Court are no longer ruining the country, they’re ruining the entire planet.
You can help by sending the DNC $20. Can we count on you?Report