The decision of the Supreme Court Thursday limiting The Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to regulate carbon emissions could have far-reaching implications, according to legal experts, that could limit President Biden’s ambitious plans to tackle climate change along with air and air pollution. water. The Decision 6 to 3 in West Virginia v. United States. EPAwhere the court ruled that the agency exceeded its powers with rules to reduce pollution of planetary power plants comes as conservatives wage a larger legal battle to curb the federal government’s ability to deal with pressing environmental problems. The outcome of these cases could determine whether the fight for US environmental policy will shift decisively to the states, where some will weaken protection as Others continue to pursue strict limits on greenhouse gas emissions and other forms of pollution. “West Virginia could end up being part of a pattern of cases where this conservative Supreme Court generally reduces federal regulatory power to attack new problems,” said William Buzbee, director of the University of Georgetown’s School of Environmental Law and Policy program. Center. “Of course, states can go beyond what federal law requires,” he added. “Many countries do. But many states do not. “ In its autumn term, which begins in October, the Supreme Court will face a challenge to the Clean Water Act that could limit the scope of the law in ways that businesses and developers have long sought. In lower courts, meanwhile, Republican attorney generals are fighting to prevent the Biden administration from taking climate change into account in important decisions and reducing climate pollution from vehicle tailings. In the view of the majority in West Virginia, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote that the EPA can make sweeping changes in the country’s energy sector only with the explicit approval of Congress. But lawmakers have not given it to the agency, given party divisions environmental issues in recent decades. The EPA “should point to the ‘clear mandate of Congress’ for the power it claims,” Roberts wrote in the majority opinion, which was attended by Judges Samuel A. Alito Jr., Amy Coney Barrett, Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett. M. Kavanaugh. and Clarence Thomas. Katie Tubb, a researcher at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, said the court was right to limit the EPA’s powers. “Many on the left want the EPA to regulate emissions in order to achieve a radical climate agenda,” Tubb said. “But it matters in this country who makes those decisions. “From my point of view, it is important that the American representatives be’s rather than unelected bureaucrats in the EPA.” Jodi Freeman, a Harvard Law School professor, said the court could have gone further in limiting the EPA’s authority. The majority allowed the agency to continue to regulate coal emissions from power plants – it simply could not do so by forcing utilities to switch from coal to renewable energy. There is “something like a silver lining here,” Freeman said. “It leaves a trail for the EPA to set more substantive standards.” However, the West Virginia The decision may not be good for the Biden government in challenging the Clean Water Act scheduled for this fall, legal experts say. In this case, Sackett v EPA, conservative justice could as well Notes that the EPA has exceeded its responsibilities in regulating the country’s wetlands and waterways, despite a lack of clear guidance from Congress. “The court sent a strong message to the EPA not to read its authority too widely,” said Dan Farber, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley. “And that would certainly be very useless from his point of view Sackett. “ The Clean Water Act is a long-running dispute involving an Idaho couple, Chantell and Mike Sackett, who were trying to build a house on their land near Priest Lake. The couple said their plans were thwarted by an EPA order, which determined the property contained a wetland and needed federal permission. Supreme Court Takes EPA Case That Could Restrict Clean Water Act The case raises the question of what is the “waters of the United States”, which was passed to protect the Clean Water Act in 1972. The Sacketts support a narrower definition proposed by the late Judge Antonin Scalia and supported by business groups such as the USA Chamber of Commerce. If they prevailed, it is estimated that 90 percent of federally regulated waterways in America would lose protection measures. “Over the last 30 to 40 years, the Clean Water Act has become much more than just a basic water quality program,” said Damien Schiff, a senior attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation, which represents the Sacketts. “In practice, it has become something of a mini-federal zone code.” Republican Attorneys, meanwhile, are pushing to prevent Biden from raising a key measure that represents the true cost of climate change. This measurement is called the social cost of coal, applies to subsequent decisions affecting the extraction of fossil fuels on public land, infrastructure projects and even international climate negotiations. The Supreme Court in May allowed the Biden government, for the time being, to continue to consider the social costs of climate change as it drafts new regulations and strengthens existing ones. But there is still a possibility that lower courts could prevent it use as the legal battle progresses. “The social cost of coal disputes – and especially the willingness of states to do so up to the Supreme Court – signals that there are groups that are genuinely willing to push aggressively, often new legal arguments, to challenge the Biden administration. tackling climate change, ”said Kirti Datla, director of strategic legal support for Earthjustice, an environmental law firm. Conservative politicians have also questioned Biden’s efforts to curb emissions from cars and light trucks, a major source of greenhouse gases. Led by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R), a Republican-led coalition of 15 states is suing the government’s final rule to reduce exhaust emissions, which would prevent billions of tons of carbon dioxide emissions. . The lawsuit is pending before the DC Circuit, one of the most important federal courts for environmental policy. While courts could limit the federal government’s ability to reduce pollution from power plants, some states are moving ahead with clean energy requirements, even when other states are setting them aside. About 4 in 10 Americans live in a state, city or region that is committed to 100% clean electricity by 2050 at the latest, according to an analysis by the League of Conservation Voters, a lawyer. club. And 24 governors have pledged to halve greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 and reach zero zero emissions by 2050, according to the US Climate Alliance, a bipartisan coalition of governors committed to meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement. for the climate. In Oregon, Gov. Kate Brown (D) signed one of the nation’s most aggressive clean energy plans into law last year. The plan calls on the state’s largest utilities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by 2030, 90 percent by 2045 and 100 percent by 2040. This timetable is similar to Biden’s goal. to eliminate emissions from the country’s electricity sector by 2035. Biden is asking for 100 percent clean electricity by 2035. Here’s how far we have to go. “Regardless of what the US Supreme Court decides, we will continue to move forward because we are seeing the effects of climate change on a daily basis,” Brown said in an interview, citing the state’s vulnerability to deadly wildfires, heat waves and heavy rains. from the rise in world temperature. In Connecticut, Governor Ned Lamont (D) signed a goal last month to achieve a zero-emission grid by 2040. The move came after Connecticut’s last coal-fired power station was shut down. , as it struggled to compete with cheaper gas and renewable energy sources. “Investing in a clean, durable grid is a long-standing priority for Connecticut, like many states, because of the huge benefits – jobs and economic growth that come with investing in clean energy, cleaner air and better health. “for our children and families and better protection from the extreme weather and volatile price fluctuations that come with dependence on fossil fuels,” Lamont said in a statement. Led by Glenn Youngkin, a Republican, Virginia has moved in the opposite direction. Youngkin announced plans to withdraw the state from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, an effort to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from the northeastern and mid-Atlantic electricity sector, calling it a “bad deal” for consumers. Republican lawmakers in Pennsylvania similarly tried to prevent Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf from joining the group. The issue will be decided in November, when voters will elect a new governor of Pennsylvania for the first time in eight years. GOP candidate Doug Mastriano has warned that the program will decimate jobs in the energy industry. In Nebraska – meanwhile – a red state that Donald Trump held with 58.7 percent of the vote in the 2016 presidential election – the three utilities have pledged to reach zero zero emissions by 2050 at the latest. The decision was largely driven by corporate demand for clean energy. Big companies like Facebook have located data centers in Nebraska, the third windiest state in the country, in the hope of fulfilling their commitments to use 100% renewable energy. “The market is moving towards clean energy regardless of what happens to the Supreme Court.”
