The Supreme Court's ruling on climate change, explained

The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent climate change ruling was a setback for climate action and, in the words of one conservative legal scholar, it ignored the legal principles the Court’s conservative majority claims to uphold. But it is critical to understand what the Court did and did not do in its decision. Most importantly, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency continues to have the authority and responsibility to limit climate pollution from new passenger vehicles and freight trucks, new and existing power plants, oil and gas methane released from new and existing development activity as well as other industrial sources of pollution. 

What did the court rule?

The Court ruled that the EPA can’t establish emission standards for existing coal plants based on shifts to cleaner forms of electricity generation such as wind and solar. This is unfortunate since it prevents the EPA from deploying a proven and cost-effective tool that the power industry itself commonly relies on to achieve meaningful pollution cuts. This does not limit the EPA from using other tools, and the agency can establish emission standards for existing fossil fuel power plants relying on other methods for reducing climate pollution. Of course, power companies can and are continuing to expand their reliance on clean, low cost wind and solar. In the U.S., analysis shows the growth in solar and wind means the U.S. has 200 gigawatts of solar and wind power capacity, and the largest increase in U.S. power generation this summer is from renewable energy sources. 

What tools does the U.S. have to limit climate pollution and other air pollutants?

The EPA continues to have the responsibility to address climate pollution and other harmful air pollutants. The head of the EPA, Administrator Michael Regan, said after the Court’s decision that he is “committed to using the full scope of the EPA’s authorities to protect communities and reduce the pollution that is driving climate change.” EPA is working on safeguards to limit climate and air pollution from the largest sources in the U.S. including new passenger vehicles and new freight trucks, oil and gas methane emissions, power plants and industrial sources, in addition to other actions.

What about state climate action? 

Many U.S. states have already taken action on climate change and more is planned. Fifteen states have put declining limits on power plant pollution. California and Washington State are tackling power plant pollution as part of science-based limits on all large sources of climate pollution. Colorado power companies – investor-owned utilities and rural electric cooperatives alike – are cutting climate pollution 80% by 2030. Illinois’ Climate and Equitable Jobs Act is cutting climate pollution from the power sector while creating clean energy jobs. Several leading oil and gas producing states, including New Mexico and Colorado, have safeguards to limit methane pollution. And a number of states in all regions of the country have a variety of clean energy standards. 

What was the rationale of the ruling?

The Supreme Court elevated a recent judge-made legal framework known as the “major questions doctrine” to find that the EPA’s climate pollution standards for existing power plants exceeded its authority. The Court concluded that the particular program design employed by the EPA was a “highly consequential power beyond what Congress could reasonably be understood to have granted.” The Court also explained the “major questions” doctrine should be applied only in “extraordinary cases” and such cases necessitated “clear congressional authorization.”

What did the court decide about EPA action under section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act?  

The Court did not specify the “best system of emission reduction” EPA should consider in establishing future climate pollution standards for existing power plants. The Court also found that the “EPA itself still retains the primary regulatory role in Section 111(d),” the provisions of the Clean Air Act establishing standards of performance for existing power plants, oil and gas methane, and other similar industrial sources, and therefore the EPA “decides the amount of pollution reduction that must ultimately be achieved” under state implementation plans.