Thursday’s Supreme Court decision significantly reduced the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to limit emissions under the 2014 law. However, the organization still has some of the tools to stop emissions – for now.
In a 6-3 decision on West Virginia vs. In the EPA, a law-abiding court found that the EPA had no jurisdiction to enforce the Obama administration law without the consent of the congressman.
Although the decision does not allow for that particular method unless lawmakers sign it, the agency still has a broad mandate to regulate the outflow of electricity to reduce pollution under the Clean Air Act.
In the opinion of those who want the EPA to reduce gas emissions, the problem is that in most cases, they are less efficient and more expensive in the political and regulatory environment where every second counts.
Following this decision, the organization “still has a number of ways to do its job to protect public health and the environment, including reducing greenhouse gas emissions,” said Dena Adler, a researcher at the University of New York Institute for Policy Integrity. , told Mgqumeni via email.
But he and other sources have acknowledged that there are now significant EPA restrictions that were not previously in place.
Thursday’s decision applies specifically to the EPA’s 2015 Clean Energy Plan, which had the goal of so-called generation conversion, or acceleration from coal-fired power to renewable energy and natural gas.
“That is an important obstacle, because it was the EPA’s first decision for a reason,” said Jack Lienke, director of regulatory policy at the Institute for Policy Integrity. “It shows how the power grid works and the fact that electricity is not visible.”
After the decision, the EPA has as many arrows in its portfolio as ever to deal with pollutants from the electronics industry, but “EPA’s tools are probably not enough,” says Cardozo School of Law professor Michael Herz.
Alternatively, co-firing or burning two fuel types simultaneously can create an unsanitary product in an existing plant instead of changing the generation.
“Depending on the level of shooting you can imagine, you could still get a significant reduction in carbon that way,” Lienke said.
