The Supreme Court allows the regulation limiting pollution from coal-fired power plants to remain in force

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court On Wednesday, a Biden administration order aimed at limiting planet-warming pollution from coal-fired power plants was allowed to remain in effect as legal challenges loom.

The justices rejected a blocking push by Republican-led states and industry groups the Environmental Protection Agency ruleThis is the third time this month that the conservative majority has left an environmental regulation in force for the time being.

One judge, Clarence Thomas, publicly dissented.

Two other conservative justices, Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch, said in a brief order that they expected the challengers would likely eventually prevail on at least some of their claims. But the rule doesn’t need to be blocked now because compliance work wouldn’t have to begin until June 2025 and the case could end up back before the Supreme Court relatively quickly, Kavanaugh wrote.

Justice Samuel Alito did not attend, likely due to his personal investment in one of the companies challenging the rule, Oklahoma Gas and Electric.

The rule requires many coal-fired power plants to capture 90% of their carbon emissions or shut down within eight years, with deadlines taking effect for several years. The challengers argued that the EPA had exceeded and imposed unattainable standards.

Rich Nolan, president and CEO of the National Mining Association, said his group will continue to fight the rule. He said it would require power plants to deploy unaffordable technology or be shut down at a time when the country’s electricity demand is expected to double. “If this rule remains in place, the consequences for the American people and the American economy will be catastrophic,” he said.

The energy industry is the second largest contributor to climate change in the country, and the rule is a key part of President Joe Biden’s promise to eliminate carbon pollution in the power sector by 2035 and across the economy by 2050.

The Natural Resources Defense Council said the new standards are modest but important, and the court’s decision to uphold them is a win for common sense. “This is a sigh of relief for the millions of Americans suffering from the impacts of the climate crisis,” said attorney Meredith Hankins. A Court of Appeals had allowed the EPA’s new power plant rule to take effect.

The Supreme Court also departed earlier this month two further regulations The aim is to reduce industrial emissions Planet-warming methane and toxic mercury present for now.

Other environmental regulations have not fared well in the conservative-majority court in recent years. In 2022, the justices limited the EPA’s authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants a groundbreaking decision. In June, the court stopped the agency’s fight against air pollution “good neighbor” Rule.

Another ruling in June, with which a. was repealed Decades-old decision Also known colloquially as Chevron, among other measures taken by federal authorities, it is likely to make it more difficult to set and comply with environmental regulations. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce cited that ruling in court filings supporting the challenge in the coal plant case.

Earlier Wednesday, the justices heard arguments in another environmental case that could limit the EPA’s ability to enforce clean water standards. The case involves an unusual dispute between the agency and liberal San Francisco over what the city says are incredibly vague rules governing the discharge of untreated wastewater into San Francisco Bay and the Pacific Ocean. The city faces fines ranging from $10 million (according to the Biden administration) to $10 billion (according to San Francisco’s estimate). The court appeared to be divided, with several conservative justices taking a positive view of San Francisco.

A panel of three judges – two nominated by Democratic President Barack Obama and one nominated by Republican President Donald Trump – concluded that states face no immediate harm because the compliance deadlines do not take effect until 2030 or 2032.

The EPA predicts the rule would provide up to $370 billion in net climate and health benefits and avoid nearly 1.4 billion tons of carbon pollution by 2047, equivalent to avoiding the annual emissions of 328 million gasoline-powered cars.

____

Associated Press writers Mark Sherman and Matthew Daly contributed to this report.