The decision, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, was handed down on the final opinion day of the 2021-22 term. Subscribe to Here's the Deal, our politics newsletter. Well, Barry, thanks very much for explaining that this latest decision to us and well look forward to talking to you again in future, hopefully well hopefully see some further action on it.

by Erin Douglas He's one of the six scientists who filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court case, and Mustafa Santiago Ali, who formerly worked in the EPA's Office of Environmental Justice and is now with the National Wildlife Federation. The Trump administration argued that it was required to end the CPP because it exceeded the EPAs authority under Section 7411 of the Clean Air Act, which gives the EPA the power to determine the best system of emission reduction for buildings that emit air pollutants. So when the Supreme Court makes this decision, it is also adding the burden on to these communities. 30, 2022, 12:57 PM), Gentlemen, welcome to you both. But Republican attorneys general, led by West Virginia, challenged a decision by Washington, D.C., federal judges that vacated the Trump administrations replacement rule to preempt the EPA from imposing more greenhouse gas regulations on power plants during Bidens administration. There was a bigger push, as you said earlier in this Congress. And its unlikely that the natural or economic environment of these coal plants will happen fast enough to meet those emission goals.. The agency must point to clear congressional authorization for the power it claims., Capping carbon dioxide emissions at a level that will force a nationwide transition away from the use of coal to generate electricity may be a sensible solution to the crisis of the day, Roberts wrote, But it is not plausible that Congress gave EPA the authority to adopt on its own such a regulatory scheme.. That whole process was slowed by and disrupted by the Trump administration. Circuit vacated both the Trump administrations repeal of the CPP and the ACE Rule, and sent the case back to the EPA for additional proceedings. The court ruled 6-3 that the Clean Air Act does not give the EPA blanket regulations against power plants. The Court appoints itself instead of Congress or the expert agency the decision-maker on climate policy. In the northeast, you have the regional greenhouse gas initiative which has been expanding, a cap-and-trade program a little bit like the one we were discussing earlier that had been thought of federally, many states that have set rather bold targets to transition to clean energy sources. Thank you for joining us.

The Biden administration had a very good plan that looked like it might get us on the track to avoiding dangerous climate change. We need Senator Manchin and Senator Sinema and the Biden administration and all the Republican brothers and sisters to come together and do the right thing and make sure that we are actually have a just transition, that we are making the investments that are necessary around a clean economy, and that we are lowering emissions. So what really the possibilities are, at the state level, where a lot of states have moved forward.

Record levels of fisheries and aquaculture production are making a critical contribution to global food security, the UN Ocean Conference under way in Lisbon, Portugal, heard on Wednesday. hUmO0+i*~w !$P6ZTNi[W~yG

0

hb```tV 1q `1$nXU]M5M'"6KVv.v;x]8>sby}6{.,,9gvMMm'/Kirds+qx'8.re?:22:22D Y7.q#'F~d?L*fbt$idg @bk/F)A@J'@/6SnVqXsLd/o,27Mat1,\v0p40t@ FL`YC@2$D8\$H "Lr d#iSlg`@, . Well, Congress, number one, could act? CONTACT US. There's $550 billion that's sitting right now on Capitol Hill.

Sign up to receive a daily email Throughout our community, we had multiple cancers, really a cancer cluster, if you will. At a time when newsroom resources and revenue across the country are declining, The Texas Tribune remains committed to sustaining our mission: creating a more engaged and informed Texas with every story we cover, every event we convene and every newsletter we send. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website. So theres only so much time left in this term of the Biden presidency, assuming that there is another one or a successor friendly to Mr. Biden who is elected in 2024. I do think what the Supreme Court decision does is underscore the real challenges facing Congress if there is going to be significant federal action on climate in the next year or two. Mustafa Ali, let me ask you about the danger that Michael Oppenheimer just mentioned there, the consequences of this ruling. Chief Justice John Roberts, who delivered the majority opinion, wrote that the Obama-era regulation was too broad of an interpretation of the agencys authority under the Clean Air Act. 1996 - 2022 NewsHour Productions LLC. American Electric Power is expected to shutter its Pirkey Plant in Hallsville in 2023, and several others announced the same during the Trump administration, leaving 15 coal plants operating in the state, according to an analysis by Environment Texas. But the court weighed in pretty decisively, that six-three vote that you mentioned, on powers that the court concluded EPA did not have under that original Clean Power Plan. That decision didnt say exactly how EPA would do that and weve had kind of fits and starts in different presidencies since that time, and in different sections of the economy, actually different sections of the Clean Air Act. But only Congress, or an agency with express authority from Congress, can adopt a decision of such magnitude and consequence.. In 2019, the Trump administration repealed the CPP and replaced it with the Affordable Clean Energy Rule, which gave states discretion to set standards and gave power plants flexibility in complying with those standards. In a concurring opinion that was joined by Justice Samuel Alito, Justice Neil Gorsuch emphasized that the dispute before the court involved basic questions about self-government, equality, fair notice, federalism, and the separation of powers. The major-questions doctrine, Gorsuch wrote, seeks to protect against unintentional, oblique, or otherwise unlikely intrusions on these interests by requiring federal agencies to have clear congressional authorization when they address important issues. If not for this case, we probably already wouldve seen major regulations issued by the EPA on greenhouse gas emissions.. The Clean Power Plan that the Obama administration launched after multiple years of effort never really got fully launched. Amy Howe, The ruling may cause federal agencies beyond the EPA to narrow regulations to avoid what could now be shaky legal ground.. Do you by that? RABE: I look forward to that. We dont know. That said, states are deeply divided on this, and just as Massachusetts, one of those early actor states, brought the early Supreme Court case, it was West Virginia and a coalition of other states that brought the case that led to the final demise of the Clean Power Plan. All Rights Reserved. We know that the pattern has been whenever a president, whether its Obama, Trump, or Biden, moves on climate under the Clean Air Act, there is litigation usually led by states with attorneys general opposite the party of the president. And, interestingly, this is one area, the power sector, where the where the Biden administration has not gone forward yet with a proposal or a plan.

Decisions like todays in the US - or any other major emitting economy - make it harder to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement, for a healthy,liveableplanet, especially as we need to accelerate the phase out of coal and the transition to renewable energies.. Please check your inbox to confirm. And lets say the obvious: the stakes here are high.. That becomes a major focal point in terms of just simply the breadth, and what the Court did was sort of dial that back or, in effect, take that off the table for things that EPA could try to do, while not being terribly clear about what the options would be for EPA if it wanted to revisit this. PITA: Alright. Now, with the limited Trump-era ACE rule back in effect and back in court, the EPA will have to explain why it wants to change its own rule again a long process that will be difficult to accomplish this late in Bidens term, experts said. Theres lots of speculation in the aftermath of the decision, how they might try to scale this back or impose different kinds of technology requirements. The majoritys reasoning, she wrote, rests on one claim alone: that generation shifting is just too new and too big a deal for Congress to have authorized it in Section 7411. The Supreme Courts recent decision to limit the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency has many worried about whether the Biden administration can reach its climate goals. Thank you. 3191 0 obj <> endobj Roberts full-throated embrace of the major-questions doctrine a judicially created approach to statutory interpretation in challenges to agency authority likely will have ripple effects far beyond the EPA. US President Joe Biden described it as a devastating decision.

That provision, the Trump administration contended, only allows the EPA to implement measures that apply to the physical premises of a power plant, rather than the kind of industry-wide measures included in the CPP. The ruling by the United States Supreme Court against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on Thursday, is a setback in our fight against climate change said the UN SpokespersonStphane Dujarric. By a vote of 6-3, the court agreed with Republican-led states and coal companies that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit was wrong when it interpreted the Clean Air Act to give the EPA expansive power over carbon emissions. PRIVACY POLICY PITA: Yeah, can you dig into that a little bit more? RABE: Well thats right, there really is history here. But the chief justice goes on at some length to say, and I quote, At bottom, the Clean Power Plan essentially adopted a cap-and-trade scheme or a set of cap-and-trade schemes for carbon which Congress had consistently rejected before that time and he didnt see that as being within the orbit of that particular arena. We heard yesterday was after all of this back and forth, no one anticipated that the Clean Power Plan was going to be brought back to life. The Secretary-General has said repeatedly that the G20 [group of developed industrialized economies] must lead the way in dramatically stepping up climate action, he continued.

I think anything the administration tries to do, they will be right back in court, and the case will have to work its way up to the same Supreme Court, which has shown itself to be antithetical to the idea of dealing with climate change. A model of air pollution and health by Rice University researchers in 2018 found that the W.A. RESOURCES That has stalled and its not at all clear that were going to see significant output. Cases: West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, Recommended Citation: Last year the D.C. So, Michael, when it comes to that action, you mentioned you don't see much hope in Congress acting, though they do retain the authority to do something.

That is Mustafa Santiago Ali and Michael Oppenheimer joining us tonight. Three coal-fired power plants in Texas, including Martin Lake, were among the top 10 highest greenhouse gas polluting plants in the country that year, according to the analysis. For instance, the auto industry may say, we're going to move ahead with electrification of motor vehicles anyway. SCOTUSblog (Jun. The high court said a cap on power plants carbon dioxide emissions that forces a transition to other fuels may be a sensible solution to the climate crisis, but that Congress did not give the Environmental Protection Agency the broad authority to make such requirements. But elections are coming up, we have a packed agenda for Congress, including reaction to some of the other Supreme Court decisions, wide range of other issues. The Supreme Court on Thursday truncated the Environmental Protection Agencys power to regulate greenhouse gases. June 30, 20229 AM Central. originally published at Howe on the Court, West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency. His reasoning applies to any major policymaking effort by federal agencies. See all speakers announced to date and buy tickets. Although the court ruling does not prevent the EPA from regulating emissions in the future, according to news reports, it makes clear that Congress would have to give clear consent for the agency to act. And we should pay attention, because we have over 200,000 people who are dying prematurely right now from air pollution in our country. It was considered somewhat unusual for the court to take this up at all, given that the regulation that they were examining had already been rolled back by the Trump administration. The Court appoints itself instead of Congress or the expert agency the decision-maker on climate policy, Kagan wrote. But there are countries, like India, for instance, that haven't decided which way they're going to go. We're talking about Latinx communities, Asian and Pacific Islanders, indigenous brothers and sisters, and also lower-wealth white communities, who, because of previous policy, have often been placed in sacrifice zones. And we had cancers. 3216 0 obj <>stream And clearly EPA is going to try and do something now going forward. PITA: What can you tell us about anything on the congressional side?

In 2015, the Obama administration adopted the Clean Power Plan, which sought to combat climate change by reducing carbon pollution from power plants for example, by shifting electricity production to natural-gas plants or wind farms. PITA:In a 6-3 ruling on the case of West Virginia vs the Environmental Protection Agency, the Supreme Court greatly curtailed the power of the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants, in a decision that hobbles federal governments ability to combat climate change and has broader implications for federal regulatory power across the board. Barry, thanks so much for talking to us today. (@l7BtLex$"~_'Qd-C|aJT-`RA9*H10@ >l He reads the statute as allowing for alterations or regulations that go specifically to help each power plant might operate, what technology or abatement technology might be used. The president had pledged that, by 2030, the country would reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent from 2005 levels. Have they sort of started regrouping and trying to come up with some of these new avenues? Decisions like todays in the US - or any other major emitting economy - make it harder to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement, for a healthy, He reminded that the UN Secretary-General. Parish coal-fired power plant southwest of Houston contributes an average of more than 100 excess deaths of Texans per year from the health impacts of air pollutants including particulate matter. What comes into play with the new decision is the electricity sector is in play here, and this actually goes back to things that were launched in the second term of the Barack Obama presidency, really after reelection, to try to use those Clean Air Act powers, section 111 D, which has not been widely used, and apply them to electricity generation and try to achieve a major shift in reduction of carbon emissions that would come from the fuels that we would use to produce electricity. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. The clock is already ticking toward 2024, theres only so much that can be done either on the executive action path, which is challenging, or the legislative path which is thus far been very, very challenging as well. I don't hear much hope there from Michael Oppenheimer. My best friend's mother and grandmother died of cancer. Learn more about Friends of the NewsHour. Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. What was their decisioning for putting this curtailment in place? And it was put into holding. Listen to Brookings podcastshere, on Apple or Google podcasts or on Spotify, send email feedback topodcasts@brookings.eduand follow us at@policypodcastson Twitter. And, at the same time, we know that our communities are hit first and worst, so we have to deal with all of the climate crises that were just mentioned. Mustafa, you actually you grew up in West Virginia, not too far from a coal power plant. And weve had this sort of back and forth every time a president acts, a coalition of states who oppose that president bring legal challenges. There was also a lot of discussion of a very specific policy tool that the Clean Power Plan was pursuing. Thanks to audio engineer Gaston Reboredo. That was really the main focal point for yesterday, but potentially with much broader ramifications. And, of course, one huge challenge for the Biden administration is you dont just snap your fingers and instantly produce a new technology, a new regulation, and a design, much less get approval for this.

Michael Oppenheimer, Professor of Geosciences and International Affairs, Princeton University: That's a very optimistic view.

Capping carbon dioxide emissions at a level that will force a nationwide transition away from the use of coal to generate electricity may be a sensible solution to the crisis of the day, Roberts wrote. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience. The ruling may hamper President Joe Bidens plan to fight climate change and could limit the authority of federal agencies across the executive branch. Disclosure: Rice University has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors.

One coal plant in Texas, Martin Lake in Tatum, emitted 13.5 million metric tons of greenhouse gases in 2020, according to an analysis of EPA data by Environment Texas. Antnio Guterres had said recently that there is still time to avert the worst impacts of climate change, Global economy: we must do everything possible to avoid global fracture caused by US-China tensions, urges Guterres, Island nations on climate crisis frontline not sitting idly by, Ahead of UN summit, leading scientists warn climate change hitting harder and sooner than forecast, New UN financing initiative goes live to power climate action, A visionary blue transformation strategy to enhance underwater food systems. We still dont know we didnt know before the case; we dont know now what that is going to look like and what that is going to entail. Administer Michael Regan yesterday, said repeatedly that were disappointed in the decision but were going forward. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can leave if you wish.

PITA: On environmental issues, as on others where federal action has been stymied by a lot of this congressional dysfunction or inaction, the states have sometimes stepped in, and in some cases, as with the vehicle emission standards that you mentioned, sometimes, a large enough or influential enough state or groups of states can kind of set national standards for things, even though its not technically a national policy. Thats equal to emissions from about 3 million passenger vehicles. And we know we have got 24 million people with asthma and seven million kids. Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the dissent, said the majority has a misunderstanding of how the electricity market works every regulation of power plants dictates the national energy mix to some degree, Kagan wrote, and warned that the court may have overstepped by deciding how much regulation is too much. Those plants contribute to dangerous health impacts, experts said. Can Congress really kind of pull together and create a coalition to pass any portion of this? Todays ruling is one of the most significant developments in administrative law.. Do you value our journalism? States that want to prevent certain federal regulations are likely to take a broad view of the majoritys opinion, she said. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. RABE: So in this case the main opinion was written by the Chief Justice John Roberts and he argues that the approach was too sweeping.

We have to act rapidly to cut emissions in order to avoid the worst impacts of global warming, said Luke Metzger, executive director of Environment Texas. But eight years later, the emission targets were met anyways as coal-fired plants closed due to high costs and new competition. A wind turbine farm in Maui, USA., by Unsplash/Tim Foster, Receive daily updates directly in your inbox -. I am pleased the Supreme Court reversed the D.C. That said, while clearly the eyes begin to turn back toward states the likelihood or capacity that there would ever be a coordinated bottom-up movement on climate is quite unlikely. endstream endobj startxref Some countries, like China, I think are going to go ahead and do what they were going to do anyway, more or less regardless of what we're doing.

Thats not at all clear at this point and it does raise the possibility that the combination of this court decision and legislative inaction could lead this to be a very unproductive period after all the initial hope and promise. Michael Oppenheimer of Princeton University, one of six scientists who filed an amicus brief in the case, and Mustafa Santiago Ali, of the National Wildlife Federation, join Amna Nawaz to discuss. The US continues to be the largest emitter of planet-warming CO2 gases, second to China, however, Mr. Dujarric said it was important not to over-react to the actions of one nations high court. Sign up for The Brief, our daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news. While it is not the UNs role to provide legal commentary on judicial decisions of individual Member States, just more generally, I can say that this is a setback in our fight against climate change, when we are already far off-track in meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement, Mr. Dujarric told correspondents. hbbd``b`%@ The conservative-leaning majority on the Court sided with the states and fossil fuel interests which argued it threatened excessive regulation, agreeing that Congress - when the EPA was established - did not intent to delegate such significant decisions, to an agency. We never had an analysis done, because we didn't have the language or the things that were necessary at that time. I would actually take us back 15 years to 2007, where in another case brought by a different state in that case not West Virginia, the case yesterday, but Massachusetts Massachusetts versus EPA, the Supreme Court narrowly decided that EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, did have powers under the Clean Air Act last passed in 1990, to begin to address climate change greenhouse gases, most notably carbon dioxide. Whatever else this Court may know about, it does not have a clue about how to address climate change, Kagan wrote. So theres a theres a really tricky juggling act at this point for the Biden the administration. Mustafa Santiago Ali, National Wildlife Federation: We're talking about African American communities. Subscribe to Heres the Deal, our politics newsletter for analysis you wont find anywhereelse. The courts 6-3 ruling on a case sparked by Texas and 16 other states which addressed an Obama-era regulation aimed at coal-fired power plants, one of the biggest sources of greenhouse gas emissions in the nation was a blow to President Joe Bidens plan to reduce U.S. emissions and meet the countrys goals under international agreements.

What can you tell us about this? Thus far, that has not materialized. Solar power crescent dunes in Nevada, California. The case was brought against the US Government agency by the state of West Virginia on behalf of other mainly Republican-led states, and several major coal producing companies. The Energy Information Administration said in 2021 that higher natural gas prices had increased the share of U.S. electricity generated by coal, in turn increasing greenhouse gas emissions. The Supreme Court on Thursday reversed the D.C. Circuits ruling. Not if Congress steps up. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. Some of this very kind of partisan cleavages we see on climate change in Washington and Congress are also true in a great many state legislative bodies, so I think one can always look to states for innovation in playing some significant role, but to assume that theres going to be this bottom-up negotiation that can manage especially the kinds of emission reduction pledges that President Biden promised by the end of this decade, or that our other major global trading partners are looking to the United States to produce, having made a fairly bold commitment to 2030, its pretty hard to see how between now and then states just dramatically transform and move forward in a more coordinated way.