The Supreme Court cleared the way Wednesday for a Biden administration plan to cut greenhouse gases and other emissions from fossil-fuel fired power plants, denying an emergency appeal by more than two dozen Republican-led states, utilities and others.
Cut through the 2024 election noise. Get The Campaign Moment newsletter.
The groups sought the emergency injunction while they pursue litigation to block the regulations, claiming the Environmental Protection Agency’s power plant plan would force the premature closure of some plants, cost jobs and jeopardize the reliability of the power grid.
The Biden administration said the plan was calibrated to avoid economic harm and problems for the electric grid, and that the rule would protect communities from pollution and help the nation meet long-term goals to combat the climate crisis. The initiative is one of the administration’s most significant actions on global warming.
We break down the Supreme Court’s major decisions of 2024 and why they matter.
End of carousel
The high court’s move breaks with a string of recent decisions in which the justices curbed the EPA’s ability to regulate pollution, but is also the third time this month the justices have refused to immediately block an environmental initiative while litigation plays out in lower courts.
🌱
Follow Climate & environment
During the term that ended July 1, the court placed on hold an ambitious EPA plan to address smog-forming air pollution that drifts across state lines, which companies and trade associations are challenging in lower courts. The justices also weakened the EPA’s ability to enforce the Clean Water Act last year and in 2022 limited the agency’s ability to regulate power plant emissions that contribute to climate change — a major opinion that also curbed the regulatory power of the executive branch.
On Oct. 4, the high court declined to stay new rules on mercury emissions from power plants and curbs on methane emissions from oil and gas drilling operations.
The power plant plan that was the focus of the most recent Supreme Court action was finalized in April. It would require all coal-fired power plants that operate past 2039 and new natural gas-fired power plants to reduce carbon emissions by 90 percent.
The EPA estimates the plan by 2047 would reduce carbon emissions by about 1.4 billion metric tons, which is roughly equivalent to the annual emissions of 328 million cars. In a single year, the agency said, the plan could avert 1,200 premature deaths and hundreds of trips to the emergency room.
Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares, whose state was among those seeking a stay from the high court after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit denied a similar request, called the regulations overly burdensome.
“New EPA regulations hinder American energy production, risking the reliability of our power grid and the livelihoods of countless workers,” Miyares said in a statement. “We are seeking relief from the Supreme Court to ensure that American energy needs are met without jeopardizing economic stability.”
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump said at a recent campaign stop in Pennsylvania that he would eliminate the power plant rule if reelected, saying it was an “anti-American energy crusade.”
The appeals court found the states and utilities are not likely to succeed on the merits of their case and said the plaintiffs could not demonstrate a need for an emergency injunction because the compliance deadlines for the regulations don’t begin before 2030.
The D.C. Circuit also found the power plant plan did not trigger the “major questions” doctrine that says agencies seeking to decide issues of major national significance must have clear congressional authorization to do so.
Environmentalists said the EPA regulations would offer a needed step toward reining in the warming of the planet.
“The EPA set reasonable standards for utilities and states to cut their carbon pollution,” the Natural Resources Defense Council said in a statement after the D.C. Circuit ruling. “The searing heat hitting much of the nation this summer is yet a further sign that we desperately need these rules to curb the pollution causing the climate crisis."
Cut through the 2024 election noise. Get The Campaign Moment newsletter.
The groups sought the emergency injunction while they pursue litigation to block the regulations, claiming the Environmental Protection Agency’s power plant plan would force the premature closure of some plants, cost jobs and jeopardize the reliability of the power grid.
The Biden administration said the plan was calibrated to avoid economic harm and problems for the electric grid, and that the rule would protect communities from pollution and help the nation meet long-term goals to combat the climate crisis. The initiative is one of the administration’s most significant actions on global warming.
We break down the Supreme Court’s major decisions of 2024 and why they matter.
End of carousel
The high court’s move breaks with a string of recent decisions in which the justices curbed the EPA’s ability to regulate pollution, but is also the third time this month the justices have refused to immediately block an environmental initiative while litigation plays out in lower courts.
🌱
Follow Climate & environment
During the term that ended July 1, the court placed on hold an ambitious EPA plan to address smog-forming air pollution that drifts across state lines, which companies and trade associations are challenging in lower courts. The justices also weakened the EPA’s ability to enforce the Clean Water Act last year and in 2022 limited the agency’s ability to regulate power plant emissions that contribute to climate change — a major opinion that also curbed the regulatory power of the executive branch.
On Oct. 4, the high court declined to stay new rules on mercury emissions from power plants and curbs on methane emissions from oil and gas drilling operations.
The power plant plan that was the focus of the most recent Supreme Court action was finalized in April. It would require all coal-fired power plants that operate past 2039 and new natural gas-fired power plants to reduce carbon emissions by 90 percent.
The EPA estimates the plan by 2047 would reduce carbon emissions by about 1.4 billion metric tons, which is roughly equivalent to the annual emissions of 328 million cars. In a single year, the agency said, the plan could avert 1,200 premature deaths and hundreds of trips to the emergency room.
Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares, whose state was among those seeking a stay from the high court after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit denied a similar request, called the regulations overly burdensome.
“New EPA regulations hinder American energy production, risking the reliability of our power grid and the livelihoods of countless workers,” Miyares said in a statement. “We are seeking relief from the Supreme Court to ensure that American energy needs are met without jeopardizing economic stability.”
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump said at a recent campaign stop in Pennsylvania that he would eliminate the power plant rule if reelected, saying it was an “anti-American energy crusade.”
The appeals court found the states and utilities are not likely to succeed on the merits of their case and said the plaintiffs could not demonstrate a need for an emergency injunction because the compliance deadlines for the regulations don’t begin before 2030.
The D.C. Circuit also found the power plant plan did not trigger the “major questions” doctrine that says agencies seeking to decide issues of major national significance must have clear congressional authorization to do so.
Environmentalists said the EPA regulations would offer a needed step toward reining in the warming of the planet.
“The EPA set reasonable standards for utilities and states to cut their carbon pollution,” the Natural Resources Defense Council said in a statement after the D.C. Circuit ruling. “The searing heat hitting much of the nation this summer is yet a further sign that we desperately need these rules to curb the pollution causing the climate crisis."
