成人X站

The U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has ruled on a 6-3 margin that Congress, in drafting federal environmental policy, did not authorize the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate coal and natural gas plants in order to decrease their carbon emissions.

Gov. Inslee addressed the decision Thursday, saying the federal government will have a difficult time crafting policy to mitigate climate change after the decision.

stems from the state鈥檚 challenge to the EPA鈥檚 ability to regulate carbon emissions at existing coal and natural gas plants under the Clean Power Plan, a 2015 Obama-era policy.

The EPA, via the Clean Power Plan, cited a section of the Clean Air Act, Section 111, which authorizes the federal agency to regulate emissions and pollutants from existing sources.

The Clean Power Plan sought to control emissions with a three-pronged system, two of which involved 鈥済eneration shifting,鈥� a move in electricity production towards renewable energy. Broadly, the Court, in a majority opinion authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, ruled that forced transition into renewables strays too far from the original intent of the Clean Air Act.

In summarizing the Court鈥檚 majority opinion, Sen. Reuven Carlyle said Thursday that 鈥淸Congress must now] pass a bill that is explicit on every single technical element,鈥� referencing Roberts鈥� analysis that, broadly, generational shifting was not defined well enough to constitute pollution regulation from existing sources under Section 111.

The relevant section of Roberts鈥� opinion can be found below.

Prior to 2015, EPA had always set Section 111 emissions limits based on the application of measures that would reduce pollution by causing the regulated source to operate more cleanly鈥攏ever by looking to a 鈥榮ystem鈥� that would reduce pollution simply by 鈥榮hifting鈥� polluting activity 鈥榝rom dirtier to cleaner sources,鈥� the Court鈥檚 opinion reads.

But in that regulation, EPA set the emissions limit 鈥� the 鈥榗ap鈥� 鈥� based on the use of 鈥榯echnologies [that could be] installed and operational on a nationwide basis鈥� in the relevant timeframe. By contrast, and by design, there are no particular controls a coal plant operator can install and operate to attain the emissions limits established by the Clean Power Plan.

Indeed, the Agency nodded to the novelty of its approach when it explained that it was pursuing a 鈥榖roader, forward-thinking approach to the design鈥� of Section 111 regulations that would 鈥渋mprove the overall power system,鈥� rather than the emissions performance of individual sources, by forcing a shift throughout the power grid from one type of energy source to another. This view of EPA鈥檚 authority was not only unprecedented; it also effected a 鈥榝undamental revision of the statute, changing it from [one sort of] scheme of . . . regulation鈥� into an entirely different kind.

Jackson sworn in, becomes 1st Black woman on Supreme Court

In a minority opinion, dissenting justices point to the idea that 鈥淢arket forces alone caused the power industry to meet the Plan鈥檚 nationwide emissions target鈥攖hrough exactly the kinds of generation shifting the Plan contemplated.鈥� The Biden administration had looked to , but the Supreme Court鈥檚 decision preemptively limits the EPA鈥檚 ability to act on those carbon reduction goals.

The minority makes the point that Congress delegated to the EPA to identify the best system to reduce carbon emissions, and the Supreme Court鈥檚 ruling is more 鈥渁n advisory vote鈥� than anything else.

The relevant section of the minority opinion can be found below.

The Court鈥檚 docket is discretionary, and because no one is now subject to the Clean Power Plan鈥檚 terms, there was no reason to reach out to decide this case. The Court today issues what is really an advisory opinion on the proper scope of the new rule EPA is considering 鈥� This Court could not wait鈥攅ven to see what the new rule says鈥攖o constrain EPA鈥檚 efforts to address climate change,鈥� the minority opinion reads.

The limits the majority now puts on EPA鈥檚 authority fly in the face of the statute Congress wrote.

The majority says it is simply 鈥渘ot plausible鈥� that Congress enabled EPA to regulate power plants鈥� emissions through generation shifting. But that is just what Congress did when it broadly authorized EPA in Section 111 to select the 鈥渂est system of emission reduction鈥� for power plants. The 鈥渂est system鈥� full stop 鈥� no ifs, ands, or buts of any kind relevant here.

In a press conference Thursday, Gov. Jay Inslee described the SCOTUS decision as a 鈥渟tunning reversal of environmental laws.鈥�

鈥淭his morning, the U.S. Supreme Court took a wrecking ball to the ability of the federal government to restrain pollution 鈥� to Americans, including Washingtonians 鈥� from coal-fired plants.鈥�

“The good news on this is that our efforts to transition off of coal and our Centralia plant will not be affected … but we have to understand that now the federal government is going to have a much, much more difficult role in trying to find some way to restrain climate change,” Inslee continued.