On Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to regulate carbon emissions that contribute to climate change. This conservative court majority’s decision sets the stage for other agencies to be limited in their regulatory power.
The court ruled that regulation is invalid if an agency does anything new or significant, by a 6 to 3 vote.
Richard Lazarus, a Harvard law professor and expert on environmental law, said that “that’s a huge deal because they won’t get it from Congress because Congress essentially dysfunctional.” “This couldn’t have happened at a better time,” because “the consequences and severity of climate change are increasing dire” and “we’re running out time to address them.”
Jonathan Adler, a Case Western Reserve professor, said that “The Court is certainly sending a message to regulatory agencies more generally that they only have power that Congress delegated them to them, so agencies need to think twice about trying to pour new wines out of old bottles.”
This means that an agency cannot simply retrofit an existing statute to create tools or mechanisms to address a problem which is not generally under its jurisdiction.
Lazarus is positive that climate change will be addressed immediately. Remember when Joe Biden was elected, he stated that we would use a large-scale government approach to climate change. Not just EPA regulation. This court may have a different opinion about that whole government approach.
The court had to decide how the EPA could regulate coal-fired power stations, which are in this country the largest source of carbon emissions and cause climate change. The Obama administration established state-by-state carbon limits, and encouraged states to use less coal and more alternative energy sources. Although the program was stopped by the courts, it still met its goals 11 years ahead of schedule. This was simply because coal was more expensive than other sources of power.
However, on Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled against any systemic approach. The court brought to life “the major questions doctrine” and said that neither the EPA or any other agency can adopt rules that are transformative to the economy unless Congress has authorized it to address a specific problem like climate change.
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the court majority, stated that the court’s “major questions doctrine” states that neither the EPA nor other agencies may adopt “transformational” rules to the economy aEUR unless Congress has authorized such a rule to address a specific issue, like climate change.
Roberts writes that in “certain exceptional cases”, both separation of power principles and a practical understanding legislative intent make it difficult to’reluctantly read into ambiguous statute text’ the delegation claimed was there. “To convince us otherwise, we need more than a plausible textual basis for agency action. Instead, the agency must point to “clear congressional authorization” for the power it claims.
Justice Elena Kagan stated in furious disapproval that the Court is creating new rules that are inconsistent with nearly a century worth of regulatory law. She said that the Clean Air Act clearly states that the EPA will need to address new problems. It also uses broad language to do so. She claims that the Court majority “doesn’t have any clue how to address climate change…yet, it appoints its own, instead of congress…the decision-maker in climate policy.” There are many things that I find more terrifying than this.
The court’s two other liberals joined her.
This decision seems to place new restrictions on agency regulations in the economy. These limits are not being imposed by court for 75 years. For example, the decision casts doubt on a Securities and Exchange Commission rule that would require securities companies to disclose climate-related risk aEUR” such as severe weather events that could affect their business models. A new interim rule, adopted by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, “aimed at treating climate gas emissions and their contribution towards climate change the same way as all other environmental effects [the Commission] considers.”
This was a very bad sign for environmentalists. It seemed to reject any attempt at regulating climate change in a holistic way.
