Supreme Court Limits EPA’s Authority to Regulate Carbon Emissions: What to Expect?
The scientific evidence of the climate crisis is overwhelming, and yet one of the main contributors and influencers of the world – the United States – is limiting one of the most powerful of its federal agencies, the EPA, in its ability to regulate Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHGs). According to scientific evidence, without a massive reduction in carbon emissions and a plan to switch to clean alternative energy sources, there will be dire climate effects worldwide. Extreme weather will become more deadly, water crises will develop, food insecurity will intensify, and diseases will spread. In fact, 25% of GHGs around the globe and in the United States come from generating electricity. So, why did the United States Supreme Court decide to limit the authority of the EPA to set critically important regulations?
Repeal of the Clean Air Act
The U.S. Supreme Court decision focused on a now-repealed act: the Clean Air Act. §111. The Act gave the EPA the power to set performance standards for existing sources of air pollutants as long as they consider cost, energy requirements, and non-air health and environmental impacts. It was an important reference for the Obama Administration's Clean Power Plan (2015), designed to help the United States accelerate its progress toward the worldwide climate goals of the 2015 Paris Agreement. Unfortunately, this legislation stayed in 2016. On "the last full day of the Trump administration, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the new rule, characterizing it as a 'fundamental misconstruction" of environmental laws. The ruling did not reinstate the Clean Power Plan; however, it did create the opportunity for the Biden administration to improve and clarify the rules.
Rationalizations of the West Virginia vs. EPA Decision
In a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court limited the authority of the EPA to regulate carbon emissions. Chief Justice Roberts claimed Congress did not grant the EPA in Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act the authority to devise emissions caps. Instead, the ruling claims Congress and Congress alone must make these regulations. Justice Roberts has limited the power of all federal agencies, claiming the Major Questions Doctrine applies. The Major Questions Doctrine can be simplified in the following manner: Congress has the absolute power to provide authority to federal agencies. According to the ruling, "the EPA's effort to regulate greenhouse gases by making industry-wide changes violated this "major questions" doctrine.
The repealing of the Clean Air Act in 2019 should have made this case obsolete, as Justice Kagan, Justice Breyer, and Justice Sotomayor pointed out in dissent. The most important part of the dissent was Justice Kagan's point that "the majority opinion is an advisory opinion on the proper scope of the new rule the EPA is considering – Court could not wait to constrain EPA's efforts to address climate change." The Supreme Court could not wait until the Biden Administration could put together a proposition on climate change regulation; they wanted to limit the regulatory power instantly.
What Does the Decision Mean for the EPA's Authority Going Forward?
The EPA will no longer be able to set goals for each state to limit carbon emissions. However, the EPA can still mandate emissions reductions by implementing standards that require coal plants to be retrofitted to burn natural gas – natural gas generates about 40% less carbon dioxide than coal and creates the same amount of power. Coal is the dirtiest fossil fuel and powers 20% of the United States' electricity. Acid rain, much from coal production, is also causing profound changes in forest ecology. Therefore, this EPA authority is still substantial even if it is severely challenged.
Consequences and Future Outlook on Climate Change
The main consequence of this opinion is that it can render federal agencies impotent. This means that federal agencies must defer to the legislative authority before acting. This could be problematic because congressional representatives might lack expertise in climate change. Additionally, we know that lobbyists can wield significant influence over congressional decisions. Another possible consequence is litigation stemming from this Court opinion. The case might allow Republican states and fossil fuel companies to challenge current and future EPA rules on carbon emissions.
Having said that, the ruling is narrow as it did not say what the EPA could regulate, just what it could not regulate. The private sector energy industry will also be influential as it continues to offer cheaper alternative energy solutions. Therefore, even if federal agencies like the EPA lose some authority, the private sector market will be there to help meet essential climate goals.
The Supreme Court's ruling will also directly impact the scope of the Biden Administration's ambitious climate change, the American population, and America's global leadership on this front. Observers note that the ruling challenges The Biden Administration's climate change agenda. Biden had huge plans to fight against climate change. In fact, on his first day in office, he re-entered the Paris Agreement on climate change to achieve his climate change objectives. Biden called the fight against climate change: a "once-in-a-lifetime opportunity" to rebuild the U.S. economy around clean energy, modern infrastructure, and electric vehicles.". The new ruling challenges Biden Administration to work with the change of policy or change from Congress to achieve the objective of fighting against climate change on a local and global level.
References:
Clear Water news & Bulletons: Fact Sheet 14:
https://www.clearwater.org/news/powerplants.html
Live Updates: Supreme Court Strips Federal Government of Crucial Tool to Control Pollution (June 2022):
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/06/30/us/supreme-court-epa?auth=login-google
How the Supreme Court ruling will gut the EPA’s ability to fight the climate crisis (June 2022):
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/30/politics/epa-supreme-court-ruling-effect/index.html
The Supreme Court’s EPA ruling is a big sedtback for fighting climate change, but not a death knell (June 2022):
Supreme Court ‘aims to take our country backwards’ with EPA ruling, Biden says (June 2022):
https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/supreme-court-country-backwards-epa-ruling-biden-says
Supreme Court curtails EPA’s authority to fight climate change (June 2022):
https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/06/supreme-court-curtails-epas-authority-to-fight-climate-change/
West Virginia et al., v. Environmental Protection Agency et al. Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (No. 20-1530, June 2022):
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf
Supreme Court ruling on EPA is latest blow to Biden’s climate agenda (July 2022):
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/supreme-court-ruling-epa-latest-blow-bidens-climate-agenda-rcna36167
EDITOR'S NOTE: TBG is focused on global solutions. We leverage a Global Network comprised of more than 1000 experts in over 150 countries. Through TBG Consulting, TBG Global Advisors, TBG Purpose, and TBG Capital, we undertake global projects — from Kenya to Kazakhstan — and transform challenges into opportunities. TBG Purpose is a leading Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)/Sustainability partner for corporations, institutions, and governments. We provide an integrated set of solutions and enable organizations to meet their Sustainability and ESG objectives