1/8/2024 0 Comments No fracked gas in mass![]() Reminding the court of the plain meaning of the word “system,” Kagan scoffed at Roberts’ denial that a mandate to shift power generation from coal to gas, wind, and solar was rather obviously a “system of emission reduction.” Indeed, she praised “generation shifting” (the court’s term for mandating a reduction in the use of coal) as “the most effective and efficient way to reduce power plants’ carbon dioxide emissions.” In Roberts’ view, only emission reduction technology that could be deployed at each individual coal power plant was the kind of “system” that Congress had in mind when it authorized EPA to determine the “best system for emission reduction.” Creating a system of economic incentives, he averred, was not such a “system.” To get to the preposterous conclusion that EPA acted outside its authority, Roberts implied that the cap on coal power was not a “system for emission reduction” at all. The ‘best system’ full stop–no ifs, ands, or buts of any kind relevant here.” Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the three dissenters, answered that Congress did precisely that “when it broadly authorized EPA in to select the ‘best system of emissions reduction’ for power plants. ![]() But it is not plausible that Congress gave EPA the authority to adopt on its own such a regulatory scheme. ![]() May be a sensible solution to the crisis of the day. “Capping carbon dioxide emissions at a level that will force a nationwide transition away from the use of coal to generate electricity,” wrote Roberts, The Clean Air Act of 1970 as amended requires EPA to make the determination of the “best system of emission reduction,” but that clear delegation of authority was clearly not clear enough for this court’s majority. Roberts and his bloc proceeded to use their newly minted “major questions doctrine” to disallow the cap on coal power that EPA had in 2014 deemed the “best system of emission reduction” from power plants. But SCOTUS identified for the first time a “major questions doctrine” that allows courts flexibility to reject agency regulations in “extraordinary cases” of “economic and political significance.” This deliberately obfuscatory, legalistic terminology cloaks a significant expansion of raw judicial power to reject important regulations protecting the environment, workers, consumers, and public health and allow industry a free hand to pollute. EPA that EPA has not only authority, but also an obligation, to regulate greenhouse gases as dangerous pollutants. The court also left intact its decision in Massachusetts v. Nor did the court overrule the 38-year-old Chevron doctrine, under which courts generally defer to agency rulemaking within the agency’s charter and expertise. Guided by Roberts, the court did not dismantle the administrative state wholesale by holding it unconstitutional for Congress to delegate EPA the authority to regulate carbon emissions. By keeping drafting in his own hands, he was able to steer the language, if not the effect, of the decision in his preferred incremental fashion. The goal had been announced in Obama’s 2014 Clean Power Plan that never took effect, but still made its way to the court’s docket in 2022.Ĭhief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion for the 6-member right-wing bloc. The court held that EPA had no authority to cap coal’s contribution to national electricity generation at 27% by 2030. industries that are pumping out greenhouse gases that cause climate change. The 6-3 Supreme Court decision stripped the Environmental Protection Agency of much of its power to regulate U.S. What New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v Bruen did to gun control and Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization to reproductive rights, West Virginia v EPA has done to climate. Environmental Protection Agency completes a trifecta of long-sought court victories for the right.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |