The Supreme Court has decided to allow President Joe Biden's challenging climate rule for power plants to take effect, rejecting requests to block the regulation aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This pivotal decision emerged after months of legal tussle involving more than two dozen Republican-led states and various energy industry groups, spearheaded by West Virginia, who had sought to stop the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) new regulation.
The rule, introduced earlier this year, mandates coal-fired power plants to substantially cut carbon pollution—by as much as 90 percent—if they wish to continue operations past 2039. Newer natural gas plants must also comply with stricter emissions standards. The justices of the Supreme Court have not detailed their reasoning for denying the stay, which many observers see as another significant moment for climate change policy just weeks before the presidential election.
Justice Clarence Thomas indicated he would have favored granting the stay, whereas Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted the strong likelihood of success for the challengers but asserted it was unnecessary to interfere at this point since compliance deadlines are still two years away. Kavanaugh, alongside fellow Justice Neil Gorsuch, insisted the urgency to address potential harm wasn't apparent yet.
The refusal to stay the rule mirrors the Supreme Court's recent tendencies, as they similarly declined to block regulations limiting mercury from coal plants and imposing significant reductions on methane emissions within the oil and gas industry. This series of decisions reflects the court's reluctance to disrupt regulatory efforts when cases challenging them are still pending at lower court levels.
Attorneys for opposing states and the coal industry argue the rule is impractical, contending the technologies needed for such extensive pollution reduction are not yet viable on commercial scales. They worry about the cost of infrastructure required to capture carbon emissions effectively and transport them to storage sites potentially hundreds of miles away.
West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, leading the legal battle against the EPA's new rule, asserted, “This is not the end of this case. We will continue to fight through the merits phase and prove this rule strips the states of important discretion.” The determination to keep fighting was echoed by utility groups like the Edison Electric Institute, whose members are investing heavily in carbon capture technologies but still express doubt about the current readiness of such technologies for widespread application.
Meanwhile, support for the EPA’s stance came from various environmental groups and utility companies who believe the rule is grounded on scientifically validated methods. EPA spokesperson Nick Conger stated the agency is eager to implement the rule, projecting it could yield up to $370 billion in climate and public health benefits over the next couple of decades.
The controversy surrounding this regulation is heightened by the approaching presidential elections, with Vice President Kamala Harris championing extensive climate action compared to former President Donald Trump's stated intention to dismantle Biden's environmental policies. The outcome of the legal struggles surrounding the EPA rules may also influence future policies on climate change, putting even more pressure on policymakers.
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals is set to hear arguments on this and related cases soon, with expedited timelines established for addressing the looming conflict between environmental goals and energy reliability. The lower court has already indicated it would deliberate swiftly, which may lead to rulings before the proposed compliance deadlines arrive.
This situation encapsulates the bigger battle over environmental regulation and climate change policy—one where technological feasibility meets legislative intent. The Biden administration has made climate change reduction central to its agenda, but significant pushback from various states and energy sectors continues to challenge those ambitions, leading to what some experts describe as an uncertain regulatory environment.
Before this ruling, the D.C. Circuit had already rejected attempts to halt the EPA’s regulations, asserting the challengers did not meet the burden of proof necessary to demonstrate their claims were likely to succeed. The continuing litigation is likely to reshape how the nation approaches future emissions regulations, especially as environmental interests press for action amid growing concerns over climate change impacts—fueled by recent natural disasters and extreme weather events across the country.
All eyes are now on the D.C. Circuit as it prepares to dig even more deeply as the legal arguments surrounding this landmark climate rule continue to evolve. For many watching the intersection of justice, policy, and climate change, the stakes could not be higher.
