Supreme Court to Take Up Greenhouse Gas Limits

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/axelhartmann/8091555761/sizes/c/in/photolist-dk2kC6-9zDBKn-51rjbe-8ybJV6-5QSre4-9dFEKo-aKDdKV-aKDfq4-aBc5Vh-51vxVm-9oBicL-7V1S5e-5EKPDf-9AeBsd-cijUH3-7aiBsi-7anejE-7aiwmp-7aniWq-7an7B3-7anh65-9AecHW-9AbfGz-9AbfKX-EwGqL-9AecVh-9AbfMv-39CcSC-9upEyU-9upGrd-9upEby-9umDNX-9umCst-9umFPt-9upFsC-9upHTd-9upFPQ-9AeuAg-9Ahs3S-7wEtuk-7anpn1-6Ymbtp-7xENDJ-9dCBk8-9dCAKg-9dCAUg-9dCBcB-9dFEfL-9dFEao-7av5nw-7arhjT/">glasseyes view</a>/Flickr

For indispensable reporting on the coronavirus crisis, the election, and more, subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter.


The Supreme Court announced today that it will take up the question of whether the Environmental Protection Agency can include greenhouse gas emission limits in permits it issues for new or expanding large polluters like refineries and power plants.

But perhaps even more significant was what the court chose not to consider: a challenge to the EPA’s broader authority to regulate greenhouse gases as dangerous pollutants under the Clean Air Act, and a challenge to its authority to issue emission limits for cars, both of which have been upheld by lower courts and remained untouched today.

For now, the justices chose to leave intact the legal basis for greenhouse gas emissions limits on new and existing power plants the EPA is expected to roll out over the next several years. Those limits could shutter many of the nation’s coal plants and discourage others from opening. Today’s announcement also preserves the Obama administration’s plan to slash climate change-causing pollutants from cars.

The justices’ decision “means that EPA’s legal and scientific findings that greenhouse gases harm health and the climate remains the law of the land,” said Natural Resources Defense Council senior attorney John Walke.

“The EPA’s findings that greenhouse gases harm health and the climate remains the law of the land.”

The question the court will consider is whether the EPA can use greenhouse gas emissions as a criteria, like it does with smog and soot limits, to determine whether large industrial polluters receive permits to build new facilities or expand existing ones. But even if the justices disallow such a permitting criteria, the EPA would still retain the authority to set greenhouse gas emissions limits for these polluters—just not written into the permits, per se.

The petition behind the permitting issue was brought by a coalition of industry groups, including the National Association of Manufacturers, which in a statement today said “stringent permitting requirements” would “impact every aspect of our economy.”

But Walke stressed that the permitting program “is not necessary to establish or enforce” greenhouse gas emission standards for power plants, like those proposed in September that are a signature product of new EPA administrator Gina McCarthy.

More MotherJones reporting on Climate Desk

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest