In the News

The US Supreme Court rejected the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s authority to curb power plant GHG emissions by switching fuels to renewable sources of power or lower-emitting natural gas. 

New York University School of Law Professor and Dean Emeritus Richard Revesz expressed relief that the court allowed EPA to retain its authority to regulate GHG emissions although the decision is a "significant setback" for environmental protection and public health safeguards. "No party in this case challenged that authority, which is granted by the Clean Air Act. This case challenged only the form of the regulation. The EPA still has avenues to address power sector greenhouse gas emissions, which it must do to meet its statutory obligations to regulate air pollutants that adversely affect public health and welfare," he added in a statement issued by the NYU School of Law's Institute for Policy Integrity. Revesz filed a friend-of-the court brief in support of EPA's stance in the case.

The Supreme Court has sharply limited the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to mandate greenhouse gas emissions reductions from the country’s power generation sector. The move could curb future actions from the Biden administration to combat a core driver of climate change. "At the same time, Thursday’s decision could open the door for polluting industries to mount much broader attacks challenging how federal agencies interpret laws designed to protect the public from the harms those industries cause", said Max Sarinsky, a senior attorney at the Institute for Policy Integrity at the New York University School of Law. 

The decision complicates efforts to fight climate change by preventing wide-ranging actions under the Clean Air Act. “But the EPA retains the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, including from power plants," said Richard Revesz. "No party in this case challenged that authority, which is granted by the Clean Air Act. This case challenged only the form of the regulation. The EPA still has avenues to address power sector greenhouse gas emissions, which it must do to meet its statutory obligations to regulate air pollutants that adversely affect public health and welfare.”

In a blow to the fight against climate change, the Supreme Court today limited how the nation’s main anti-air pollution law can be used to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. Richard Revesz, an environmental expert at the New York University School of Law, called the decision “a significant setback for environmental protection and public health safeguards.” But Revesz said in a statement that the EPA still has authority to address greenhouse gas emissions from the power sector. 

KALW Radio will discuss the Supreme Court’s ruling on EPA’s power to force power plants to cut down their carbon pollution: how will this ruling impact President Biden’s climate agenda, including plans to decarbonize the energy grid by 2035? Jack Lienke, regulatory policy director of the Institute for Policy Integrity, will be a speaker.

“Everyone around this office has been anxiously hunched over their computer at 10 a.m. hitting refresh over and over again at the 10-minute mark to see what our fate will be,” said Jack Lienke. “I don't quite understand why it's done this way, in which the opinions are released every 10 minutes,” he added. “It creates a lot of suspense.” Environmental lawyers and climate activists across the country have been bracing for the Supreme Court's ruling in West Virginia v. EPA.

“Normally courts review actual regulations, and there is no regulation to review right now,” New York University law professor and environmental law expert Ricky Revesz told CNN. “Whatever the court does will involve speculation, and courts don’t normally—they stress this—give advisory opinions. That’s not what courts do.” The Supreme Court is expected to issue its ruling on West Virginia v. EPA this week, potentially deciding the future of the federal government’s ability to limit the effects of climate change—or even to address the looming climate disaster at all. Here’s what you need to know. 

“No decision today,” wrote Jack Lienke, regulatory policy director of New York University School of Law’s Institute for Policy Integrity, on Twitter yesterday. “More stomach-churning mornings ahead.” Environmental lawyers this week are greeting each Supreme Court opinion day with a mix of anticipation and dread — hearts pounding, stomachs flipping — as the justices get ready to issue their ruling in the blockbuster EPA climate battle. The court, which is likely in its last week of opinion releases, issued three decisions in 10-minute intervals starting at 10 a.m. yesterday. None of them was West Virginia v. EPA, which could curb the federal government’s power to regulate climate and other key issues.

Climate regulation could be the next Democratic priority to fall to the Supreme Court. West Virginia argued the EPA doesn’t have the authority to set standards that encompass an entire sector of the energy industry and, rather, is limited to only setting restrictions on individual power plants. Max Sarinsky, a senior attorney at the Institute for Policy Integrity, however, said there are some power plant-specific regulations that can be effective at fighting climate change. “Source-specific regulations like heat rate improvements, co-firing, carbon capture or some combination of various approaches — they can be quite environmentally effective,” Sarinsky said. 

Leading farm groups are calling on the Securities and Exchange Commission to exempt agriculture from proposed requirements that corporations start disclosing the greenhouse gas emissions in their supply chains. But supporters of the rule argue the ag sector’s concerns are overblown and that industry emissions estimates will be sufficient to comply with the disclosure rules. “Some small farmers and businesses have submitted comments indicating their concern that the compliance costs of the rule would reach them. However, large public companies regularly comply with voluntary emissions reporting standards through estimated, rather than measured, supply chain emissions,” according to comments provided by the Environmental Defense Fund and the Institute for Policy Integrity at the New York University School of Law.