With his climate agenda facing an uncertain future in Congress, President
The nation’s top court hears arguments Feb. 28 from coal plants and Republican-led states trying to curb the
The White House has drawn support from a mix of industries, including technology companies and electric utilities. The Supreme Court, with a 6-3 conservative majority, decided to take the case before the Biden administration even enacted a power plant emissions regulation, suggesting some justices are eager to curb EPA’s powers.
“The chilling effect of what the court decides cannot be overstated,” said Christy Goldfuss, senior vice president of the Center for American Progress, a progressive think tank. “This will determine really what the options are for the federal government.”
Biden vowed to slash U.S. emissions 50% to 52% from 2005 levels by 2030. But it’s impossible to hit that target without regulations to stifle greenhouse gases from oil wells, automobiles and power plants, as well as tax incentives designed to spur clean energy that can edge out fossil fuels, according to several analyses.
The power sector presents the single biggest opportunity for cuts this decade -- potentially providing 41% of the total emissions reductions under a blueprint analyzed by the
Concern that the Supreme Court’s ruling could restrict the EPA’s ability to control emissions prompted 15 major tech companies and manufacturers, including
At issue is a bid by coal companies and Republican attorneys general to prevent the Biden administration from imposing broad emissions limits on the electric sector, like those in the now-defunct Obama-era Clean Power Plan, which would have encouraged states to shut coal plants and boost renewable energy from wind, solar and other sources. The companies, including
The states, led by West Virginia, said that the appeals court left the door open for the EPA to remake the U.S. electric system, going well beyond what Congress intended when it enacted the Clean Air Act 51 years ago.
“That could grant EPA tremendous amount of authority to regulate the carbon emissions of many, many things,” from concrete plants to space heaters and fireplaces, said Jonathan Brightbill, a former Justice Department attorney who is now a partner at
The Supreme Court took up the matter even though neither regulation is currently in place and the Biden administration has no plan to resurrect the rules. The court is scheduled to rule by late June.
Shared Grid
Electric power companies serving 40 million Americans, including
Electric utilities also worry that without the EPA’s Clean Air Act authority to curb emissions, states and environmental groups would sue, possibly forcing plant owners to reshuffle operations and abandon investment decisions. The Supreme Court
EPA’s authority is in the spotlight after a breakdown in congressional efforts to enact climate legislation, including some $300 billion in tax credits for nuclear plants, renewable power and advanced energy manufacturing. Without incentives, Biden needs more aggressive regulations to achieve U.S. carbon-cutting targets.
That becomes harder if the Supreme Court limits the EPA to driving emissions cuts based only on what can be achieved at individual power plants.
That scope is critically important, said
If the EPA loses, it still has options to rein in emissions, such as forcing coal plants to adopt carbon capture technology or burn cleaner fuels, including natural gas, said
The EPA also can give states flexibility to comply with any emissions standard it sets through trading programs and emissions averaging across multiple plants, said
For now, the agency remains undaunted, vowing in a statement that it “will not waver from lawfully meeting its obligation to protect people from climate and air pollution.”
--With assistance from
To contact the reporters on this story:
To contact the editors responsible for this story:
Elizabeth Wasserman
© 2022 Bloomberg L.P. All rights reserved. Used with permission.
To read more articles log in.
Learn more about a Bloomberg Tax subscription.