The Supreme Court has heard arguments in the most important environmental case in a decade that could undermine President Joe Biden’s climate plan.
At issue is the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) power to limit emissions from power plants under the landmark Clean Air Act.
The court, with a 6-3 Conservative majority Monday, expressed skepticism about the EPA’s power to issue sweeping regulations.
But how the judiciary will decide in this case is so far unclear.
The judges accepted an appeal from 19 mostly Republican-led states, led by coal producer West Virginia and some of the country’s largest coal companies, questioning the power of the EPA.
A ruling that limits the EPA’s authority could undermine the Biden administration’s plans to halve the country’s greenhouse gas emissions by 2030.
It could also have far-reaching implications for regulatory efforts well beyond the environment — including consumer protection, workplace safety, and public health.
The case has an odd twist — the court accepted the appeal even though the center’s federal regulation never really went into effect. There is currently no EPA plan to address CO2 emissions from power plants.
Analysis by Esme Stallard, BBC Climate Team
While not current Biden policy being challenged, the court decision could significantly affect the national climate policies he can set and the country’s progress on its climate goals.
This case disputes whether the EPA — a national body — has the authority to regulate planet-warming emissions for nationwide energy sectors or just for individual power plants. This is important because not all states agree with Biden’s climate change agenda.
On his first day in office, President Biden re-included the US in the Paris Agreement – the first legally binding universal agreement on climate change targets – and committed the country to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 52% by 2030 from 2005 levels.
The nineteen states that are suing the EPA accounted for 44% of U.S. emissions in 2018 and have averaged just a 7% reduction in their emissions since 2000.
Therefore, without committed and accelerated action by these states, or a mechanism for Biden to limit their emissions, the US will not be able to meet his climate goals.
This potential failure is not just a domestic concern, but also one of global climate change mitigation — the country is responsible for nearly 14% of global greenhouse gas emissions.
US Attorney General Elizabeth Prelogar, representing the EPA in court Monday, argued that the case should be dropped precisely for this reason: because there is no applicable regulation and therefore no “harm” is being done to the plaintiffs.
But the Supreme Court justices seemed unconvinced by this reasoning.
“Just because there are no regulations doesn’t mean there is no harm,” Chief Justice John Roberts replied.
Ms Prelogar said the administration was working on a new regulation, which the courts could consider later.
- Some effects of global warming ‘irreversible’ – UN
- A really simple guide to climate change
While much of Monday’s discussion was highly technical, some of the questions revealed the judges’ doubts that the EPA had the authority to set national policy.
Questions from Conservative Judge Judge Samuel Alito specifically suggested that any broad assertion of power by the EPA would constitute an “important issue” that the court’s precedent must specifically authorize.
And Judge Alito also appeared to criticize the breadth of EPA’s authority, asking Ms. Prelogar if that is “one reason the EPA cannot enforce a single-family home system similar to what it claims it can do with existing power plants.”
Monday’s hearing came hours after a panel of climate experts released a 3,675-page United Nations report on the threat of global warming.
Approved by 195 national governments, the report found that many of the effects of global warming were simply “irreversible.”
Add Comment