EPA Can Regulate 83 Percent of Greenhouse Gases Instead of 86 Percent, Says U.S. Supreme Court
The U.S. Supreme Court today issued a decision in the case of Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency in which it more or less affirmed the EPA's power to regulate the emissions of carbon dioxide so long as they are emitted with other pollutants that the agency has the authority regulate under the Clean Air Act. The EPA claimed that since it had the authority to regulate any facility that emitted more 100 tons of other pollutants per year, it could similarly regulate any facility that emitted more than 100 tons of carbon dioxide annually. More than 6 million such facilities including schools, big apartment buildings, hospitals, dairy farms, and so forth emit that much carbon dioxide. The agency concluded that regulating that many facilities would be "absurd" so it decided to "tailor" its regulations so that they applied only to facilities that emitted greenhouse gases equivalent to more than 75,000 tons of carbon dioxide annually.
The Supreme Court ruled today that the EPA can regulate the emissions of greenhouse gases from facilities that emit 100 tons of the other pollutants that it already has Clean Air Act authority to regulate. Since, for example, big power plants, refineries, and cement factories emit significant amounts of pollutants like nitrogen oxides, particulates, ozone and so forth, the agency will have the power to limit to their greenhouse gas emissions as well.
As the Associated Press reported:
''EPA is getting almost everything it wanted in this case,'' [Justice Antonin] Scalia said. He said the agency wanted to regulate 86 percent of all greenhouse gases emitted from plants nationwide, and it will it be able to regulate 83 percent of the emissions under the ruling.
Will the ruling have any effect on the Obama administration's proposals to force electric power generating plants to cut their greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent? Not really. From AP:
The EPA and many environmental advocates said the ruling would not affect the agency's proposals for first-time national standards for new and existing power plants. The most recent proposal aims at a 30 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants by 2030, but won't take effect for at least another two years…
…David Doniger, director of the climate and clean air program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the ruling was a green light for the administration's proposal to cut greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants. ''There's no adverse effect on EPA's power plant proposal. In fact, it looks like the court is reaffirming EPA's authority to set those standards,'' Doniger said.
Given Republican obstructionism with regard to climate change policy, this is the sort of "second best" piecemeal regulation that New York Times columnist Paul Krugman feels forced to endorse today.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
So much for Obama's EXTRA CONSTITUTIONAL RULE MAKING.
This is the same Supreme Court which ruled that a fine was not a tax when they decided to rule on the matter and then decided that the fine was actually a tax so that it would be legal.
It's a penaltax.
It's a Failure to Act Correctly Assessment.
Supreme Court Justice Widget's decision:
I am not an engineer (even though I am) and have nothing to say about this.
Is this one of those 'give em what they want... good and hard' decisions?
So under this rule they can also regulate oxygen since facilities that emit carbon dioxide also emit oxygen and if you can regulate oxygen you can regulate every forest, field, and waterway since they all emit oxygen.
I AM THE LORD GOD OF HELL FIRE!!!
/The Supremes
If you can't trust job-for-life, unelected bureaucrats to make the hard decisions that need to be made to make the Earth a better place, who can you trust?
Have fun unwinding this decision:
SCALIA,J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, Parts I and II of which were for the Court. ROBERTS,C.J.,and KENNEDY,J., joined that opinion in full; THOMAS and ALITO, JJ., joined as to Parts I, II?A, and II?B?1; and GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR,and KAGAN, JJ., joined as to Part II?B?2. BREYER J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which GINSBURG, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined. ALITO, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which THOMAS, J., joined.
I tried to read just the syllabus. It needed to come with extra glaze for your eyes.
All of the assenting to the part about being confused what CO2 was.
Sounds like a lot of hot CO2 to me.
Any Supreme Court followers want to answer this?
Can a case still be brought challenging the actual harm finding by the EPA (i.e. declare CO2 to be not harmful or less harmful than regulated)?
Congress wrote the Clean Air Act.
Congress can amend it to exclude CO2 from the list of things the EPA can regulate.