Supreme Court limits EPA to curb power plant emissions | Latest News

Mark Sharman-The Associated Press

Batter the fight against Washington (AP) — Climate changeThe Supreme Court on Thursday restricted how the country’s major air pollution control laws could be used to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.

In a 6-3 vote with a majority of conservatives, the court said the Clean Air Act wouldn’t give the Environmental Protection Agency a wide range. Authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions From a power plant that contributes to global warming.

According to one prominent meteorologist, this decision is a big step in the wrong direction, with a “gut punch”, when the environmental damage caused by climate change and disastrous warnings about the future is increasing. Said there is.

Court decisions can complicate government plans to combat climate change. The proposal to regulate power plant emissions is planned by the end of the year. This decision also has the potential to broadly impact the regulatory efforts of other agencies beyond climate change and air pollution.

People are also reading …

This decision was also backed by a conservative majority backed by three appointed presidents of former President Donald Trump. Overturned national abortion rights, almost 50 years old, Expanded gun rights And issuance Determination of major religious rights, Everywhere in liberal objections.

President Joe Biden is the country Greenhouse gas emissions By the end of the decade it will be halved and by 2035 it will have a emission-free electricity sector. Power plants account for about 30% of carbon dioxide emissions.

“Reducing carbon dioxide emissions to a level that forces us to move from coal to generate electricity nationwide may be a wise” solution to the crisis of the day, “” John Roberts said. The chief gave his opinion in court.

However, Roberts wrote that the Clean Air Act does not authorize the EPA to do so and Congress must speak clearly on this subject.

“Determining such scale and outcome depends on the parliament itself, or an agency that acts according to a clear delegation from its representative body,” he wrote.

In dissenting opinion, Judge Elena Kagan wrote that the decision removed the Congressional power parliamentary EPA to address “the most pressing environmental problems of our time.”

Mr. Cagan said the stakes in this case were high. “The court has appointed climate policy decision makers, not parliament or academic institutions. It can’t be more scary,” she said.

Biden called the ruling “another catastrophic decision aimed at retreating our country” in a statement. This decision risks keeping the air in our country clean and impairing our ability to combat climate change, but I use my legitimate authorities to protect public health and tackle the climate crisis. Don’t hesitate to do that. “

Patrick Morrisey, Attorney General of West Virginia, who led the legal challenge to the EPA authorities, said: -The generation that was dismissed. “

However, Marshall Shepherd, a former president of the American Meteorological Society and a professor of meteorology at the University of Georgia, said of this decision: come. “

Richard Leves, an environmental expert at NYU School of Law, called the decision “a significant setback for environmental and public health protection.”

But he said in a statement that the EPA still has the authority to deal with greenhouse gas emissions from the electricity sector.

EPA spokesman Tim Carroll said authorities are considering the decision. “The EPA is committed to using the full range of existing authorities to protect public health and significantly reduce environmental pollution, which is in line with the growing clean energy economy.” Carroll said.

The court ruled that if Congress wants to empower government agencies to regulate issues of major national importance, Congress must speak specifically.

New York Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said the decision would have widespread implications. “The consequences of this decision will spread to the entire federal government, from food and drug regulation to our healthcare system, all of which will endanger the lives of Americans,” Schumaer said.

Some conservative judges have criticized what they see as an unchecked force of the Federal Office.

These concerns were evident in a court order revoking the policies of the two Biden administrations aimed at reducing the spread of COVID-19. Last summer, a 6 to 3 conservative majority of courts ended the suspension of peasant evictions over unpaid rent. In January, the same six judges blocked the requirement for workers of large employers to be vaccinated or tested on a regular basis and to wear masks at work.

Underlying all these issues is the lack of action from Congress, reflecting the fierce disagreement between parties over the role of federal government.

With respect to the environment, Byden’s signature plan to deal with the climate, a radical social and environmental policy bill known as Buildback Better, is a Republican of Parliament and a conservative Democratic Senator Joe of West Virginia’s Coal State. Almost dead in the united opposition from Manchin.

In a reduced version, Democratic-backed legislation provides tax credits and spending to boost renewables such as wind and solar and significantly increase the number of electric vehicles.

The same day the judge warned that a UN panel report could make the world worse, hungry, poorer and more dangerous in the coming years as the effects of climate change worsen. , I heard the discussion of this case.

The power plant case has a long and complex history, starting with the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan. The plan would have required the state to reduce emissions from power generation, primarily by shifting away from coal-fired power plants.

But the plan never came into effect. The Supreme Court, which acted in proceedings filed by West Virginia and others, blocked it with a 5-4 vote in 2016, with the majority being conservative.

The plan was put on hold and the court battle over it continued. However, after President Donald Trump took office, the EPA abolished plans for the Obama era. At the time, the agency claimed that it had limited authority to reduce carbon emissions and devised a new plan to significantly reduce the role of the federal government in this matter.

New York, 21 other predominantly Democratic states, the District of Columbia, and some of the largest cities in the United States have filed proceedings over the Trump program. The Federal Court of Appeals in Washington ruled against both the abolition and the new plan, and while the new administration was drafting a new policy, that decision had no effect.

In addition to the extraordinary nature of the High Court’s involvement, the reductions sought by the Obama project by 2030 have already been achieved by the market-led closure of hundreds of coal-fired power plants.

A power plant operator servicing 40 million people has asked the court to maintain the flexibility of the company to reduce emissions while maintaining reliable service. Well-known companies such as Apple, Amazon, Google, Microsoft, and Tesla also helped the administration.

19 predominantly Republican-led states and coal companies led the Supreme Court battle with a wide range of EPA authorities that regulate carbon emissions.

Associated Press writers Matthew Daly, Seth Borenstein, and Cathy Bussewitz of New York contributed to this report.

Copyright 2022 AP communication. all rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission.

Supreme Court limits EPA to curb power plant emissions | Latest News

Source link Supreme Court limits EPA to curb power plant emissions | Latest News

Back to top button