U.S. Supreme Court challenges the scope of climate-change powers of environmental agencies

As they consider a case that could undermine President Joe Biden’s climate agenda, the U.S. Supreme Court justices debated putting limits on the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.

After two hours of arguments in Washington and a mixed reception by Republican-led states, the justices rejected the attempt to stop the EPA issuing a broad plan to reduce carbon emission from power plants. With the backing of power companies and environmental groups, Biden’s administration is defending the authority of the agency.

Justice Samuel Alito questioned claims that the administration can move electricity production away from high-emission sources if it does not impose unreasonable cost or threaten grid reliability.

“I really dont see what the concrete limitations are in any of what you said, he told U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar. “So long as the costs are not absolutely crushing for the society, I dont know why EPA cant go even a lot further.

Justice Clarence Thomas stated that he was not convinced of the distinction EPAs opponents made about permissible and prohibited regulation. The states say the agency can regulate “inside the fence-line of power plants but cant try to restructure the entire industry.

“I dont know how you can draw such clean distinctions, Thomas said.

Given the importance of the session, it was quite low-key. Justice Neil Gorsuch was the only conservative court judge to ask a question. Amy Coney Barrett (justice) and Brett Kavanaugh (justice) made only a few comments.

Bidens climate pledge

The United States could lose the opportunity to fulfill Biden’s pledge that it would at least halve its greenhouse gas emissions by the end the decade. According to multiple analyses, it is impossible to meet that target without regulations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from oil wells, automobiles, and power plants. Tax incentives are also needed to encourage clean energy that can outperform fossil fuels.

The argument came hours after the release of a United Nations panel report warning that the world has a “brief and rapidly closing window of opportunity to slow the pace of global warming.

The states and companies want the court to prohibit anything that could be compared to former President Barack Obama’s Clean Power Plan. This plan, which encouraged states to shift electricity generation away form coal-burning power plants, to more environmentally-friendly options such as renewable energy, was blocked by the Supreme Court in 2016. The Clean Power Plan was blocked by the Supreme Court in 2016. It never became effective.

National Grid USA, Consolidated Edison Inc. (Exelon Corp.), and Consolidated Edison Inc. are some of those power companies that have joined the Biden administration in defending EPAs authority. Nacco Industries Inc. and Westmoreland Mining Holdings LLC are the challengers.

The case centers on a Clean Air Act provision requiring the EPA to identify the “best system of emission reduction for existing pollution sources. The law then requires that states implement plans that reflect these findings.

Agency’s wheelhouse

Justice Elena Kagan said those words indicated Congress “wanted to give the agency flexibility to regulate as times changed, as circumstances changed, as economic impacts changed.

The session was dominated by the so-called major question doctrine. In past cases, the court has stated that Congress must give clear authorization before any agency can exercise broad powers. It was that doctrine that the court used to lift the Biden administrations moratorium against evictions during the pandemic. It also blocked plans for regular vaccines and tests for the 84 million workers.

Barrett made a contrast to the eviction order, which was based in part on Barrett’s assessment of the Courts that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was going beyond its core area.

“Here, if were thinking about EPA regulating greenhouse gases, well, theres a match between the regulation and the agencys wheelhouse, right? Barrett asked.

The dispute could be a crucial one for the movement against the so-called administrative State. Legal conservatives claim that unaccountable regulators are stealing a role that the Constitution entrusts Congress.