Breaking News
Investing Pro 0
Free Webinar - What Is a Gold IRA? Fees, Advantages, and Risks - December 7, 2022 | 01:00PM EST Enroll Now

Supreme Court justices question U.S. power to curb carbon emissions

Commodities Feb 28, 2022 01:50PM ET
Saved. See Saved Items.
This article has already been saved in your Saved Items
 
2/2 © Reuters. FILE PHOTO: Visitors walk their dogs across the Supreme Court Plaza during a storm on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., February 22, 2022. REUTERS/Tom Brenner/File Photo 2/2
 
EXC
-1.31%
Add to/Remove from Watchlist
Add to Watchlist
Add Position

Position added successfully to:

Please name your holdings portfolio
 
PCG
+0.91%
Add to/Remove from Watchlist
Add to Watchlist
Add Position

Position added successfully to:

Please name your holdings portfolio
 
ED
-0.99%
Add to/Remove from Watchlist
Add to Watchlist
Add Position

Position added successfully to:

Please name your holdings portfolio
 

By Lawrence Hurley and Valerie Volcovici

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Conservative U.S. Supreme Court justices on Monday appeared skeptical of the federal government's authority to issue sweeping regulations to reduce carbon emissions from power plants in a case that could undermine President Joe Biden's plans to tackle climate change.

The court, whose 6-3 conservative majority has shown wariness toward broad federal agency actions, was weighing the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from existing coal- and gas-fired power plants under the landmark Clean Air Act.

Although some justices questioned the EPA's power in an abstract sense, it remained unclear how they would rule, as lawyers representing the EPA and power companies pushed back against a decision that would prevent the agency from issuing any regulation that went "outside the fenceline" - meaning beyond restrictions on individual plants.

An eventual ruling restricting the EPA's authority could hamstring the administration's ability to curb the power sector's emissions - representing about a quarter of U.S. greenhouse gases. The United States, behind only China in greenhouse gas emissions, is a pivotal player in efforts to combat climate change on a global basis.

Conservative Justice Samuel Alito indicated that any broad assertion of authority sought by the EPA would constitute a "major question" that under court precedent requires Congress to have expressly authorized it.

"You are claiming that the interpretation gives you the authority to set industrial policy and energy policy and balance such things as jobs, economic impact, the potentially catastrophic effects of climate change as well as costs," Alito told U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, representing Biden's administration.

The Supreme Court is reviewing the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit's 2021 decision striking down Republican former President Donald Trump's Affordable Clean Energy rule. That regulation would have imposed limits on a Clean Air Act provision called Section 111 that provides the EPA authority to regulate emissions from existing power plants.

The United Nations earlier in the day released a 3,675-page report https://www.reuters.com/business/cop/un-climate-report-urges-world-adapt-now-or-suffer-later-2022-02-28 urging global action to combat climate change. Outside the Supreme Court, a small group of demonstrators carried signs reading "Protect the Clean Air Act."

The case was pursued by Republican-led states led by coal producer West Virginia. Other challengers include coal companies and coal-friendly industry groups. Coal is among the most greenhouse gas-intensive fuels.

Democratic-led states and major power companies https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/us-utilities-side-with-environment-agency-supreme-court-climate-case-2022-01-27 including Consolidated Edison Inc (NYSE:ED), Exelon Corp (NASDAQ:EXC) and PG&E (NYSE:PCG) Corp sided with Biden's administration, as did the Edison Electric Institute, an investor-owned utility trade group.

During the argument, their lawyer Beth Brinkmann, stressed the value of flexibility that would allow for some "outside the fenceline" regulation, including authorization of emissions trading between plants.

That argument seemed to draw some interest from the bench, including conservative Justice Clarence Thomas.

"I don't know how you can draw such clean distinctions," Thomas told Yaakov Roth, a lawyer representing coal companies.

Liberal Justice Elena Kagan said that "inside the fenceline" regulations can be just as onerous on coal plants as a more industry-wide rule.

"Reform can be very small or can be catastrophic. There are 'inside the fence' technological fixes that could drive the entire coal industry out of business tomorrow, and an 'outside the fence' rule could be very small, or it could be very large," Kagan said.

The rule proposed by Trump, a supporter of the U.S. coal industry who also questioned climate change science, was meant to supplant Democratic former President Barack Obama's Clean Power Plan mandating major reductions in carbon emissions from the power industry.

The Supreme Court blocked https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-carbon/supreme-court-blocks-obama-carbon-emissions-plan-idUSKCN0VI2A0 Clean Power Plan implementation in 2016 without ruling on its lawfulness.

Coal-aligned groups want the justices to rule that Biden's administration cannot take a sweeping approach to regulating carbon emissions under Section 111. Such a decision would prevent the EPA from enforcing industry-wide changes, limiting it to actions targeting individual plants.

That would be a blow for the administration, which wants the U.S. power sector decarbonized by 2035. If Biden's administration loses the case, Congress would need to pass new legislation for the government to impose sweeping climate-related regulations - unlikely given congressional divisions.

Prelogar said the EPA will unveil a proposed new regulation by the end of the year, which would likely come after the Supreme Court's ruling - expected by the end of June.

Supreme Court justices question U.S. power to curb carbon emissions
 

Related Articles

Add a Comment

Comment Guidelines

We encourage you to use comments to engage with other users, share your perspective and ask questions of authors and each other. However, in order to maintain the high level of discourse we’ve all come to value and expect, please keep the following criteria in mind:  

  •            Enrich the conversation, don’t trash it.

  •           Stay focused and on track. Only post material that’s relevant to the topic being discussed. 

  •           Be respectful. Even negative opinions can be framed positively and diplomatically. Avoid profanity, slander or personal attacks directed at an author or another user. Racism, sexism and other forms of discrimination will not be tolerated.

  • Use standard writing style. Include punctuation and upper and lower cases. Comments that are written in all caps and contain excessive use of symbols will be removed.
  • NOTE: Spam and/or promotional messages and comments containing links will be removed. Phone numbers, email addresses, links to personal or business websites, Skype/Telegram/WhatsApp etc. addresses (including links to groups) will also be removed; self-promotional material or business-related solicitations or PR (ie, contact me for signals/advice etc.), and/or any other comment that contains personal contact specifcs or advertising will be removed as well. In addition, any of the above-mentioned violations may result in suspension of your account.
  • Doxxing. We do not allow any sharing of private or personal contact or other information about any individual or organization. This will result in immediate suspension of the commentor and his or her account.
  • Don’t monopolize the conversation. We appreciate passion and conviction, but we also strongly believe in giving everyone a chance to air their point of view. Therefore, in addition to civil interaction, we expect commenters to offer their opinions succinctly and thoughtfully, but not so repeatedly that others are annoyed or offended. If we receive complaints about individuals who take over a thread or forum, we reserve the right to ban them from the site, without recourse.
  • Only English comments will be allowed.

Perpetrators of spam or abuse will be deleted from the site and prohibited from future registration at Investing.com’s discretion.

Write your thoughts here
 
Are you sure you want to delete this chart?
 
Post
Post also to:
 
Replace the attached chart with a new chart ?
1000
Your ability to comment is currently suspended due to negative user reports. Your status will be reviewed by our moderators.
Please wait a minute before you try to comment again.
Thanks for your comment. Please note that all comments are pending until approved by our moderators. It may therefore take some time before it appears on our website.
Comments (2)
gab nea
gab nea Mar 01, 2022 7:25PM ET
Saved. See Saved Items.
This comment has already been saved in your Saved Items
appear skeptical? what a political group the majority of the court have become.
Roger Pruzansky
Roger Pruzansky Feb 28, 2022 9:58AM ET
Saved. See Saved Items.
This comment has already been saved in your Saved Items
maybe they should be overturning the green deal stopping us from getting our own gas and oil
Brad Albright
Brad Albright Feb 28, 2022 9:58AM ET
Saved. See Saved Items.
This comment has already been saved in your Saved Items
You seem to be misinformed, The Green New Deal was not enacted. Change the channel.
 
Are you sure you want to delete this chart?
 
Post
 
Replace the attached chart with a new chart ?
1000
Your ability to comment is currently suspended due to negative user reports. Your status will be reviewed by our moderators.
Please wait a minute before you try to comment again.
Add Chart to Comment
Confirm Block

Are you sure you want to block %USER_NAME%?

By doing so, you and %USER_NAME% will not be able to see any of each other's Investing.com's posts.

%USER_NAME% was successfully added to your Block List

Since you’ve just unblocked this person, you must wait 48 hours before renewing the block.

Report this comment

I feel that this comment is:

Comment flagged

Thank You!

Your report has been sent to our moderators for review
Continue with Google
or
Sign up with Email