By a 6-3 vote, with the Conservatives in the majority, the court said the Clean Air Act does not give the Environmental Protection Agency broad authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants that contribute to global warming. The decision, environmental advocates and liberal justice dissidents said, was a major step in the wrong direction – “a punch,” said one leading meteorologist, at a time of growing environmental damage attributed to climate change amid dire warnings. future. The court ruling could complicate the government’s plans to fight climate change. Its detailed proposal for the regulation of power plant emissions is expected by the end of the year. Although the decision was specific to the EPA, it was in line with the conservative majority’s skepticism about the power of regulators and sent a message of possible future implications beyond climate change and air pollution. The ruling set an exclamation point in a court ruling in which a Conservative majority, backed by three former President Donald Trump appointees, also overturned the nearly 50-year-old nationwide right to abortion, expanded gun rights and passed important religious rights rulings. in all liberal disagreements. President Joe Biden aims to halve the country’s greenhouse gas emissions by the end of the decade and have a non-emissions electricity sector by 2035. Power plants account for about 30% of carbon dioxide emissions. “Reducing carbon dioxide emissions to a level that will force a national transition from using coal to electricity generation can be a logical ‘solution to the crisis of the day,’” Supreme Court Justice John wrote in his court opinion. Roberts. But Roberts wrote that the Clean Air Act does not give the EPA the power to do so, and that Congress needs to be clear about this. “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,” he wrote. In a dispute, Judge Elena Kagan wrote that the decision stripped the EPA of the power given to it by Congress to meet “the most pressing environmental challenge of our time.” Kagan said the stakes in the case are high. He said: “The Court appoints itself – instead of Congress or the Office of Experts – responsible for climate policy decision-making. “I can not think of many things more frightening.” Biden, in a statement, called the decision “another catastrophic decision that aims to lead our country backwards.” He said he “will not back down from using my legal principles to protect public health and tackle the climate crisis.” And EPA chief Michael Regan said his service would proceed with a rule to enforce environmental standards in the energy sector. West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrissey, who led the legal dispute with the EPA authority, said: “The EPA can no longer bypass Congress to exercise broad regulatory power that would radically transform the country’s energy network and force states to fundamentally shift their energy portfolios away from coal. – fired generation. “ However, Marshall Shepard, a professor of meteorology at the University of Georgia and former president of the American Meteorological Society, said of the decision: decades. Come.” Richard Revesz, an environmental expert at New York University Law School, described the decision as “a significant setback for environmental protection and public health safeguards.” But it also said in a statement that the EPA still has the power to deal with greenhouse gas emissions from the energy sector. EPA Administrator Regan said the organization “will proceed with the legal setting and implementation of environmental standards that meet our obligation to protect all people and all communities from environmental damage.” Democratic Sen. Chuck Sumer of New York said Thursday that the consequences of Thursday’s decision “will affect the entire federal government, from the regulation of food and medicine to our nation’s health care system, which will be jeopardized.” the lives of Americans. “ The court ruled that Congress must speak honestly when it wants to authorize a service to handle a matter of major national importance. Several conservative judges have criticized what they see as the uncontrollable power of the federal services. These concerns were evident in the court orders rejecting two policies of the Biden government aimed at reducing the spread of COVID-19. Last summer, the conservative majority of the court with 6-3 ended a pause in evictions due to unpaid rents. In January, the same six judges blocked the requirement for employees to be vaccinated against large employers or to have regular tests and masks at work. In all of these issues lies Congress’ lack of action, which reflects bitter, partisan disagreements over the role of the federal government. On the environment, Biden’s draft climate bill, a sweeping social and environmental policy bill known as Build Back Better, is completely dead amid united opposition from Republican Republicans and conservative Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin. coal state of west virginia. According to a scaled-down version, Democrat-backed legislation would offer tax breaks and spending to boost renewable energy sources such as wind and solar, and would dramatically increase the number of electric vehicles. The judges heard arguments in the case on the same day that a report by a United Nations commission warned that the effects of climate change were going to get much worse, likely to make the world sicker, hungrier, poorer and more dangerous in the years to come. The power plant affair has a long and complicated history that begins with the Obama administration’s Clean Energy Plan. This plan would require states to reduce emissions from electricity generation, mainly by moving away from coal-fired plants. But this plan never came into force. Acting in a lawsuit filed by West Virginia and others, the Supreme Court barred her in 2016 by a 5-4 vote, with the Conservatives in the majority. With the plan pending, the legal battle for it continued. But following the inauguration of President Donald Trump, the EPA scrapped the Obama-era plan. The Trump administration claimed that its power to reduce carbon emissions was limited and devised a new plan that drastically reduced the role of the federal government in the matter. New York, 21 other predominantly Democratic states, the District of Columbia and some of the nation’s largest cities have sued Trump. The federal court in Washington rejected both the abolition and the new plan, and its decision left nothing to be desired, while the new government was planning a new policy. Adding to the unusual nature of the Supreme Court’s involvement, the cuts sought in the Obama plan by 2030 have already been achieved through the closure of hundreds of coal plants due to the market. Nineteen states and coal companies, mostly led by Republicans, led the fight in the Supreme Court against the EPA’s broad power to regulate coal production.
Associated Press writers Matthew Daly, Seth Borenstein and Cathy Bussewitz in New York contributed to this report.
