The U.S. Supreme Court has made a significant ruling that upholds regulations requiring power plants that burn fossil fuels to reduce emissions of toxic substances. This decision is a setback for several Republican-led states and power generators that had challenged these stringent rules. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized regulations on mercury emissions earlier this year and had previously issued standards targeting methane emissions in December 2023. The litigation surrounding these rules has been intense, with opponents arguing that compliance would be financially burdensome and yield minimal public health benefits.
The Biden administration, however, has pushed back, asserting that these regulations are essential for protecting public health and addressing climate change. The Supreme Court’s ruling on Friday addressed two of three emergency issues related to the administration’s efforts to tackle emissions from fossil fuel sources. Notably, the court has yet to rule on requests to block a plan aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions from coal and natural gas power plants.
In late August, Republican officials from 24 states sought to halt the administration’s methane reduction initiatives, primarily impacting oil and gas operations. These same states, along with various power industry groups, had previously requested the court to suspend the mercury regulations while the litigation unfolded in lower courts. According to the EPA, power plants must comply with the mercury rules by July 2027, while the methane regulations are expected to cut emissions by 80% between 2024 and 2038.
Methane has been labeled a “super pollutant” by the EPA, given its potency—reportedly 80 times more effective than carbon dioxide in terms of warming the atmosphere over the first two decades. Alarmingly, it contributes to about 30% of the current rise in global temperatures. The court’s decision to deny stays on these regulations, without providing a reason, aligns with its usual practice when addressing emergency matters.
Environmental advocates welcomed the Supreme Court’s rulings. David Doniger, a senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), expressed satisfaction, stating, “The Supreme Court has sensibly rejected two efforts by industry to halt critical safeguards.” He further urged the court to similarly dismiss attempts to block the EPA’s carbon pollution standards for power plants, emphasizing the importance of the court’s previous guidance in 2022.
John Walke, another senior attorney at NRDC, highlighted the potential health benefits of these standards, stating that they have historically helped prevent respiratory issues and save lives. He characterized the updated rules as reasonable for companies and a clear indication that the court recognized the industry’s overreach.
The EPA has pointed out that power plants account for more than 25% of the United States’ greenhouse gas emissions, making them a focal point in the Biden administration’s goal to halve GHG emissions by 2030. EPA Administrator Michael Regan emphasized the agency’s commitment to developing standards that balance pollution reduction with the need for reliable electricity.
However, critics of the regulations argue that they will lead to increased electricity production costs and threaten the reliability of the power supply. Some states and electric utilities have voiced concerns that the new rules could force the closure of existing power plants. Jim Matheson, CEO of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, criticized the EPA’s approach, calling the rules “unlawful” and “unworkable,” suggesting that they impose excessive costs for marginal benefits.
These rulings come at a time when the Supreme Court has historically limited the EPA’s ability to regulate pollution and greenhouse gases. The ongoing tug-of-war between environmental regulations and industry interests is likely to continue, shaping the landscape of energy production and public health in the years to come.
