On Monday, several conservative justices of the US Supreme Court indicated that they may be open to limiting the federal government’s ability to address climate change.
The supreme court heard arguments from West Virginia, a major coal-mining state, to limit the US Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to regulate planet-heating gases in an instance that could have serious implications for those affected.
The Biden administration wants to have the case dismissed by the court because it isn’t in compliance with any existing regulations.
John Roberts, the chief judge, said that West Virginia, and other states, could still claim some damage from rules not yet passed.
Another conservative, Brett Kavanaugh, said that the court had previously expressed doubts about the government’s ability to regulate a large portion of the American economy.
Amy Coney Barrett, who was nominated by Donald Trump as Kavanaugh’s nominee, stated that the EPA had the knowledge and expertise to regulate in this field.
Environmental groups are deeply concerned by the case, which has stoked fear that it could hamper efforts to set strict limits on carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants.
It was a grotesque sight to hear big coals lawyers argue for tying EPAs hands on cutting greenhouse gas emissions, while the world’s scientists warn of a worsening swathe of human suffering, said Jason Rylander (an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity). Rylander was referring to a Monday report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Rylander said that the president should act boldly now because they were running out of time.
Already, the Biden administration has dealt with congressional refusals to enact the climate changes proposals in its Build Better Back domestic funding plan. The justices are currently hearing appeals from 19 mostly Republican-led states, and coal companies, regarding whether the EPA has the authority limit carbon dioxide emissions.
Biden has committed to halving greenhouse gas emissions by the end of this decade.
A broad ruling could also weaken regulatory efforts, which extend well beyond the environment to include consumer protections and workplace safety, as well as public health.
Many conservatives on the court have criticised what they perceive as the unchecked authority of federal agencies. These concerns are evident in orders removing two Biden policies that were intended to reduce the spread of Covid-19.
The 6-3 conservative majority put an end to a pause in evictions for unpaid rent last summer. The same six justices blocked a requirement for large employers to have workers vaccinated and tested regularly, as well as wearing a mask on their jobs.
Patrick Morrisey (West Virginia attorney general) has described the power plant case primarily as a question of who should make these rules.
Should it be unelected bureaucrats, or should it be the representatives of the people in Congress? Morrisey stated.
David Doniger is a climate change expert at the Natural Resources Defense Council. He said that courts should not be considering the issue. He claimed that Biden’s opponents were spreading horror stories about the upcoming extreme regulations the EPA might issue. The EPA is drafting a new rule from scratch.
The complicated history of the case begins with the Clean Power Plan by Obama. It would have required states that they reduce the emissions from electricity generation, primarily by shifting away coal. It was never implemented. The supreme court voted against it in a 2016 lawsuit by West Virginia and other states. Conservatives were the majority.
The plan was repealed by the EPA after Trump was elected. The agency claimed that it had limited authority to reduce carbon emissions and devised a new plan which sharply reduced federal government involvement.
New York, 21 other predominantly Democratic States, the District of Columbia, as well as some of the largest US cities, sued. The Washington federal appeals court ruled against both repeal and new plan. It left nothing in place while the new administration created a new policy.
In addition to the unusual nature and involvement of the supreme court, the Obama plan for 2030 calls for the reduction of hundreds of coal-fired power plants.
The Biden administration does not intend to revive the Clean Power Plan. Elizabeth Prelogar, the top court lawyer for the administration, says the court should dismiss this case.
Many of the nation’s largest electric utilities that serve 40 million customers are supporting the Biden administration. Other prominent businesses include Apple, Google and Microsoft. A decision is expected in June.