Lawrence Hurley

WASHINGTON (Reuters] – The ambitious climate plan of President Joe Biden faces a potential hostile reception from the U.S. Supreme Court. It is a case which could restrict federal power over environmental problems.

The court has a conservative 6-3 majority that is wary about broad federal agency action. It will be hearing oral arguments regarding the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) authority to regulate greenhouse emissions from current coal- or gas-fired power stations under the Clean Air Act.

A ruling that restricts the authority of the EPA could hamper the ability of the government to reduce the emissions from the power sector, which accounts for about 25% U.S. greenhouse gasses. In efforts to fight climate change globally, the United States is second only behind China’s greenhouse gas emissions.

Supreme Court to review U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit 2021 decision that disqualified Affordable Clean Energy Rule by Republican ex-President Donald Trump. The regulation would have imposed limitations on Section 111, a Clean Air Act provision that gives the EPA authority for regulating emissions from existing power stations.

Republican-led states, led by West Virginia’s coal producer West Virginia, took up the cause. The other potential challengers are coal companies as well, and industry associations that support coal. The most carbon-intensive fossil fuel is coal.

Democratic-led states and major power companies https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/us-utilities-side-with-environment-agency-supreme-court-climate-case-2022-01-27 including Consolidated Edison Inc (NYSE:), Exelon Corp (NASDAQ:) and PG&E (NYSE:) Corp sided with Biden’s administration, as did the Edison Electric Institute, an investor-owned utility trade group.

Trump is a strong supporter of U.S. coal and questioned the science behind climate change. Trump’s rule was to replace the Clean Power Plan, which mandated major carbon reductions from the power sector.

The Supreme Court blocked implementation https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-carbon/supreme-court-blocks-obama-carbon-emissions-plan-idUSKCN0VI2A0 of the Clean Power Plan in 2016 without ruling on its lawfulness.

The coal-aligned group wants the justices decide that Biden’s administration cannot adopt a broad approach to carbon emissions regulation under Section 112. This would stop the EPA’s ability to enforce industry-wide changes and limit it to individual plant actions.

This would have a negative impact on Biden’s administration which has set a 2035 goal to decarbonize the U.S. energy sector. Incentive-based proposals from the White House to meet that goal were rejected by Congress in budget and infrastructure legislation negotiations.

The Supreme Court already has shown antagonism toward broad agency actions, most recently on Jan. 13 by blocking Biden’s COVID-19 vaccine-or-test mandate https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-supreme-court-blocks-biden-vaccine-or-test-policy-large-businesses-2022-01-13 for large employers.

In blocking actions by government agencies, the court has used what’s known as “major question” doctrine.

If the court finds that the challenged parties lack the proper legal standing and there is no current regulation, the court could throw out the appeal.

Biden’s Administration would lose the case. Congress would have to pass new legislation in order for the government impose broad climate-related regulations. Given the divisions that persist among legislators, this is unlikely to happen soon.

The ruling should be made by June 30th.