Released October 07, 2024 | SUGAR LAND
en
Written by John Egan for Industrial Info Resources (Sugar Land, Texas)--The U.S. Supreme Court begins its 2024-2025 term today, October 7, the first Monday of October. But last Friday, it handed down two procedural decisions that supported, for now, the Biden administration's energy and environment agenda.
In unsigned orders issued last Friday, the high court denied requests from Republican-led states and energy-industry groups to intervene in two cases already being litigated in lower courts: The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) rule imposing tighter emissions standards for mercury and other hazardous air pollutants from coal-fired power plants, and the EPA's regulation of methane emissions, a powerful greenhouse gas pollutant, from oil and natural gas facilities.
The Supreme Court's decision to not intervene means litigation over both rules will continue at the U.S Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The high court justices did not provide any explanation for their decisions, and there were no recorded dissents.
Republican-led states, energy companies and energy-industry groups appealed to the high court to intervene in both cases on an "emergency" basis, even though both rules would not go into effect for several years. In recent years, when the court was not in session, it broke from tradition and rapidly issued some rulings on emergency petitions with only brief explanations, or no explanations at all. This has given rise to what critics call the court's "shadow docket."
For more on the EPA's methane emissions rule, see December 5, 2023, article - Slashing Methane Emissions Takes Center Stage at Climate Summit. For more on the EPA's final Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) rule, which was one of four final rules released together by the EPA this spring, see April 26, 2024, article - EPA Issues Rules That Could Reshape Electric Generation.
In the MATS case, Nacco Natural Resources Corporation v. EPA, seven separate court applications filed over the summer were consolidated. The petitioners claimed the EPA rule would lead to "both swift and irreparable" consequences. The new requirements, they added, did "not come with any meaningful public health benefit" and the public's health would not be harmed if the rules were delayed.
This summer, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected the states' emergency request to stay the MATS rules. Petitioners then sought relief at the Supreme Court.
In the MATS case, the petitioners, including 23 Republican-led states, energy-industry trade groups, power plant owners and coal-mining companies, argued that the new rule was part of a broader plan to, as the states, led by North Dakota contended, "force a nationwide transition away from coal for putative climate change reasons--pursuing a national policy choice this Court has expressly held the agency lacks authority to make."
That quote referenced an earlier Supreme Ccourt decision on the Clean Air Act, which turned on what the majority termed the "major question" doctrine, which is nowhere specified in law but, as the court's majority described it, requires an agency to show it had "clear congressional authorization" to undertake an action that would have significant economic and political consequences.
Writing in West Virginia v. EPA in 2022, the court majority held that the EPA's attempt to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants was unlawful because it was not undertaken pursuant to specific direction from Congress. The agency's action would have significantly changed the nation's electric generation business and imposed substantial economic costs on consumers across the country, which triggered the "major question" doctrine. For more on that decision, see July 1, 2022, article - Supreme Court Kicks Clean Air Case Back to EPA.
In announcing its intent to finalize the MATS rule last December, the EPA estimated the new rule would slash emissions of mercury and other hazardous air pollutants 80% between 2024 and 2038. Methane, which the EPA calls a "super pollutant," is a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide (CO2) over a two-decade period. Methane, the EPA said, accounted for about 30% of the current rise in global temperature. The final MATS rule was released this past spring.
In the methane case, nearly two dozen GOP-led states asked the court to intervene in litigation over the EPA's effort to curb methane emissions from oil and gas facilities. The petitioning parties argued that the EPA timeframe for compliance was too short and would lead to the closure of facilities and the loss of jobs. Again, the petitioners, some of which were the same seeking a court intervention in the MATS case, used language that sought to invoke the court's "major question" doctrine. The EPA gave oil and gas companies two years to submit a compliance plan.
The high court has yet to act on a third emergency request, to block a plan to curb greenhouse gas emissions from coal and gas-fired power plants.
Industrial Info Resources (IIR) is the leading provider of industrial market intelligence. Since 1983, IIR has provided comprehensive research, news and analysis on the industrial process, manufacturing and energy related industries. IIR's Global Market Intelligence (GMI) platform helps companies identify and pursue trends across multiple markets with access to real, qualified and validated plant and project opportunities. Across the world, IIR is tracking more than 200,000 current and future projects worth $17.8 trillion (USD).
In unsigned orders issued last Friday, the high court denied requests from Republican-led states and energy-industry groups to intervene in two cases already being litigated in lower courts: The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) rule imposing tighter emissions standards for mercury and other hazardous air pollutants from coal-fired power plants, and the EPA's regulation of methane emissions, a powerful greenhouse gas pollutant, from oil and natural gas facilities.
The Supreme Court's decision to not intervene means litigation over both rules will continue at the U.S Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The high court justices did not provide any explanation for their decisions, and there were no recorded dissents.
Republican-led states, energy companies and energy-industry groups appealed to the high court to intervene in both cases on an "emergency" basis, even though both rules would not go into effect for several years. In recent years, when the court was not in session, it broke from tradition and rapidly issued some rulings on emergency petitions with only brief explanations, or no explanations at all. This has given rise to what critics call the court's "shadow docket."
For more on the EPA's methane emissions rule, see December 5, 2023, article - Slashing Methane Emissions Takes Center Stage at Climate Summit. For more on the EPA's final Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) rule, which was one of four final rules released together by the EPA this spring, see April 26, 2024, article - EPA Issues Rules That Could Reshape Electric Generation.
In the MATS case, Nacco Natural Resources Corporation v. EPA, seven separate court applications filed over the summer were consolidated. The petitioners claimed the EPA rule would lead to "both swift and irreparable" consequences. The new requirements, they added, did "not come with any meaningful public health benefit" and the public's health would not be harmed if the rules were delayed.
This summer, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected the states' emergency request to stay the MATS rules. Petitioners then sought relief at the Supreme Court.
In the MATS case, the petitioners, including 23 Republican-led states, energy-industry trade groups, power plant owners and coal-mining companies, argued that the new rule was part of a broader plan to, as the states, led by North Dakota contended, "force a nationwide transition away from coal for putative climate change reasons--pursuing a national policy choice this Court has expressly held the agency lacks authority to make."
That quote referenced an earlier Supreme Ccourt decision on the Clean Air Act, which turned on what the majority termed the "major question" doctrine, which is nowhere specified in law but, as the court's majority described it, requires an agency to show it had "clear congressional authorization" to undertake an action that would have significant economic and political consequences.
Writing in West Virginia v. EPA in 2022, the court majority held that the EPA's attempt to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants was unlawful because it was not undertaken pursuant to specific direction from Congress. The agency's action would have significantly changed the nation's electric generation business and imposed substantial economic costs on consumers across the country, which triggered the "major question" doctrine. For more on that decision, see July 1, 2022, article - Supreme Court Kicks Clean Air Case Back to EPA.
In announcing its intent to finalize the MATS rule last December, the EPA estimated the new rule would slash emissions of mercury and other hazardous air pollutants 80% between 2024 and 2038. Methane, which the EPA calls a "super pollutant," is a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide (CO2) over a two-decade period. Methane, the EPA said, accounted for about 30% of the current rise in global temperature. The final MATS rule was released this past spring.
In the methane case, nearly two dozen GOP-led states asked the court to intervene in litigation over the EPA's effort to curb methane emissions from oil and gas facilities. The petitioning parties argued that the EPA timeframe for compliance was too short and would lead to the closure of facilities and the loss of jobs. Again, the petitioners, some of which were the same seeking a court intervention in the MATS case, used language that sought to invoke the court's "major question" doctrine. The EPA gave oil and gas companies two years to submit a compliance plan.
The high court has yet to act on a third emergency request, to block a plan to curb greenhouse gas emissions from coal and gas-fired power plants.
Industrial Info Resources (IIR) is the leading provider of industrial market intelligence. Since 1983, IIR has provided comprehensive research, news and analysis on the industrial process, manufacturing and energy related industries. IIR's Global Market Intelligence (GMI) platform helps companies identify and pursue trends across multiple markets with access to real, qualified and validated plant and project opportunities. Across the world, IIR is tracking more than 200,000 current and future projects worth $17.8 trillion (USD).
