The Supreme Court dealt a major blow to the Biden administration’s climate change agenda, ruling Thursday that the Environmental Protection Agency could not pass sweeping regulations that could review entire industries without additional congressional approval. Decision 6-3 limits how far the executive can go by imposing new environmental regulations on its own. Reducing carbon dioxide emissions to a level that will force a national transition from using coal to electricity generation may be a logical “solution to the crisis of the day”, but it is not reasonable that Congress gave the EPA the power to adopt such a regulatory system on its own in Section 111 (d) “, said Chief Justice John Roberts in the opinion of the Court, referring to Article 111 of the Clean Air Act. “A decision of this magnitude and consistency belongs to Congress itself or to a service acting in accordance with a clear delegation from that representative body.” The case stemmed from the Obama administration’s Clean Energy Plan in 2015, which aimed to reduce carbon emissions at power plants by promoting a shift from coal to gas and eventually to wind and solar. The bill was put on hold by the Supreme Court in 2016 and then scrapped by the Trump administration and replaced by the less-accessible clean energy (ACE) rule. ADMINISTRATOR BIDEN REMOVES OLD STYLE LAMPS FOR ENERGY SAVING Former director of the Office of Management and Budget and Trump chief of staff Mick Malveni says Biden has the power to make regulatory changes to oil “now.” Following the inauguration of President Biden, the ACE Rule became the subject of a dispute which led the DC Court of Appeal to repeal this rule as well as to abolish the Clean Energy Plan. Biden’s EPA, however, said it would not reinstate the Clean Energy Plan, choosing instead to develop and implement its own plan. The question of how powerful the EPA is was based on a provision in Section 111 of the Clean Air Act, which gives the EPA the power to set “performance standards” for existing sources of air pollutants, taking into account cost, energy requirements. and effects on health and the environment outside the air. Trump’s EPA, when repealing the Clean Energy Plan, took the position that Article 111 only allowed them to specify measures to be applied to the natural power plants themselves (a “in-line fence” restriction) and not broad measures application for entire industries. Similarly, West Virginia and other states have argued that Section 111 does not allow the EPA to go so far as to enact rules that would completely overhaul US grids or force industries to completely eliminate carbon emissions. West Virginia’s argument is based on the “big question doctrine”, which says that although federal agencies generally have broad legislative power as delegated by Congress through the statutes they create, when it comes to matters of major economic and political importance. country these statutes must have clear language to support the action of the organization. When Trump’s EPA scrapped the plan in 2019, he cited the dogma of big questions. Market expert Michele Schneider explains how inflation is the main driver of market disruption and how the Federal Reserve should deal with interest rates in the future. SPECIAL CLIMATE IN “PROBLEMS” WITH THE ADMINISTRATION OF BIDEN RENEWABLE ENERGY Biden’s EPA argued that the doctrine of big questions did not apply in this case, arguing that there was no such issue. During the oral hearings, Attorney General Elizabeth Prelogar argued that there could be no significant question because there are no current rules. “In the light of the above, this is a matter of major concern,” the Supreme Court said in a majority, noting that the EPA argues that existing law “authorizes it to substantially restructure the US energy market.”[.]The Court noted that the EPA drew this “newly discovered power” from “the vague language of an ‘ancillary provision’” which “had rarely been used in previous decades”. The Court stated that the new interpretation of the law by the EPA “was not only unprecedented; it also brought about a ‘fundamental revision of the statute[.]”” White House FOX Business correspondent Edward Lawrence reports the impact of the Biden government’s re-imposition of “strict” environmental regulations on infrastructure and energy projects. CLICK HERE TO READ MORE ABOUT FOX BUSINESS Given the nature of this interpretation, the Court said it was skeptical that this was what the law really intended. “In order to overcome this skepticism, the government must – in line with the dogma of big questions – indicate a ‘clear mandate from Congress’ to regulate in this way,” the court said, concluding that the EPA had failed to find such authorization. Judge Elena Kagan disagreed, along with Judges Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. Kagan described the severity of climate change and the dangers it poses if no significant changes are made to carbon emissions. “Congress has instructed the EPA to address these potentially catastrophic failures, including through the regulation of fossil fuel power stations,” Kagan wrote. The dispute argued that Section 111 did in fact authorize the EPA to make sweeping changes because it allowed the EPA to choose the “best emission reduction system”. “The dot of the ‘best system’ – no if, and or but of any kind relevant here,” Kagan said. GET FOX BUSINESS IN ENGINE BY CLICKING HERE Kagan also reiterated an argument made during the oral hearings of U.S. Attorney General Elizabeth Prelogar that there was no reason for the Court to hear even this case as the Clean Energy Plan no longer exists and the Biden government no longer exists. is working on a new plan. “However, this Court has ruled on the legality of the old rule anyway,” Kagan said. . Kagan said that the majority opinion “is really an advisory opinion on the proper scope of the new rule being considered by the EPA” and that the Court “could not wait – even to see what the new rule says – to limit EPA ‘s efforts to tackle climate change. “
