{"id":345939,"date":"2024-10-08T08:35:15","date_gmt":"2024-10-08T06:35:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=345939"},"modified":"2024-10-08T08:35:17","modified_gmt":"2024-10-08T06:35:17","slug":"supreme-court-passes-on-chance-to-block-two-aggressive-biden-harris-climate-regs","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=345939","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court Passes On Chance To Block Two Aggressive Biden-Harris Climate Regs"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"
The US Supreme Court Building in Washington DC<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From Watts Up With That?<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Daily Caller<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

Nick Pope<\/a>
<\/strong>Contributor<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Supreme Court declined to block two key Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations on Friday in a blow to red states and industry interests challenging the rules.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The court did not intervene<\/a> to pause the EPA\u2019s rules tightening limits for mercury in coal-fired power plant emissions and methane generated by oil and gas production, meaning that the rules are clear to take effect while the challengers\u2019 litigation works its way through lower courts, according<\/a> to Reuters. The organizations and states that filed the emergency appeals to the Supreme Court have argued that the agency overstepped its legal authority in issuing the regulations under the Clean Air Act and that EPA<\/a> is depriving states of their ability to establish their own emissions rules.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The mercury regulations would reduce the amount of toxic metals that all coal-fired power plants are allowed to emit by 67% and would tighten limits on lignite coal plants\u2019 mercury emissions by 70%, according to Reuters. Challengers \u2014 which include oil and gas developers, mining companies and groups focused on power markets \u2014 argued that the EPA overreached in issuing the new limits and that the regulation will jeopardize America\u2019s energy reliability<\/a> by effectively forcing the premature retirement of coal-fired power plants. (RELATED: Officials Told Biden\u2019s EPA That Its Aggressive Green Power Plant Scheme Has Serious Flaws, Docs Show)<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u2018Inevitable And Foreseeable\u2019: Grid Operators Beg Court To Nix EPA Rules To Save Electricity System From Collapsehttps:\/\/t.co\/0LAt8gHVSN<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2014 Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) September 18, 2024<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The methane rules, which also pertain to a type of emissions called \u201cvolatile organic compounds,\u201d are designed to limit flaring, or burning off extra methane<\/a> during the process of producing oil and gas, according to Reuters. The rules would also require developers to more closely monitor potential methane leaks from their oil and gas infrastructure, as well as establish a methane leak reporting program specifically for methane \u201csuper-polluters.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cEPA is pleased that the Supreme Court has denied the applications for a stay of the revised Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS),\u201d an EPA spokesperson said in a statement shared with the Daily Caller News Foundation. \u201cThe Agency believes the revised MATS rule, which will ensure that the nation\u2019s coal-fired power plants meet up-to-date standards for hazardous air pollutants that reflect the latest advancements in pollution control technologies, is firmly grounded in its Clean Air Act authority.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit declined in July and August to temporarily block the two rules while it reviews them, according to Reuters.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Supreme Court has taken action to block major regulatory moves by the EPA in recent years, such as its landmark 2022 ruling<\/a> in West Virginia v. EPA that vacated the agency\u2019s 2014 \u201cClean Power Plan\u201d to reshape the American power grid to heavily rely on green energy instead of fossil fuels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In June, the court also struck down<\/a> \u201cChevron deference,\u201d a precedent that formerly allowed agencies like the EPA broad discretion to interpret ambiguous statutes. That particular ruling is already teeing up<\/a> challenges to some of the most aggressive regulatory actions taken to date by the Biden-Harris EPA.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Editor\u2019s note: This article has been updated to include comment from the EPA.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter\u2019s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Supreme Court declined to block two key Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations on Friday in a blow to red states and industry interests challenging the rules.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":121246920,"featured_media":345944,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_coblocks_attr":"","_coblocks_dimensions":"","_coblocks_responsive_height":"","_coblocks_accordion_ie_support":"","_crdt_document":"","advanced_seo_description":"","jetpack_seo_html_title":"","jetpack_seo_noindex":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[1],"tags":[691829604,691818739,691825825,691818670],"class_list":{"0":"post-345939","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","6":"hentry","7":"category-uncategorized","8":"tag-climate-lawsuits","9":"tag-environmental-protection-agency","10":"tag-power-plants","11":"tag-supreme-court","13":"fallback-thumbnail"},"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/00-The-Supreme-Court.jpeg?fit=2560%2C1707&ssl=1","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/paxLW1-1rZF","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":292313,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=292313","url_meta":{"origin":345939,"position":0},"title":"SCOTUS Will Hear Challenge To One Of EPA\u2019s Most Stringent Proposed Climate Regs","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"22\/12\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"The Supreme Court announced Wednesday it will hear challenges against one of the Environmental Protection Agency\u2019s (EPA) key regulatory proposals.","rel":"","context":"In \"Environmental Protection Agency\u2019s (EPA)\"","block_context":{"text":"Environmental Protection Agency\u2019s (EPA)","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=environmental-protection-agencys-epa"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/0iStock-1130974196-1024x683-1.jpg?fit=1024%2C683&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/0iStock-1130974196-1024x683-1.jpg?fit=1024%2C683&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/0iStock-1130974196-1024x683-1.jpg?fit=1024%2C683&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/0iStock-1130974196-1024x683-1.jpg?fit=1024%2C683&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":207301,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=207301","url_meta":{"origin":345939,"position":1},"title":"Rule Of Law Defined by Left Wing Hysterics","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"05\/07\/2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cThe US Supreme Court has issued a series of rulings that seriously upset the rule of law in America. Most notably, the court stripped women\u2019s rights to abortion at the federal level. Other rulings on issues such as gun control and secularism have curtailed the country\u2019s forward progress.All of these\u2026","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/0Image-2022-07-05-09-27-55.png?fit=622%2C724&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/0Image-2022-07-05-09-27-55.png?fit=622%2C724&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/0Image-2022-07-05-09-27-55.png?fit=622%2C724&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x"},"classes":[]},{"id":206528,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=206528","url_meta":{"origin":345939,"position":2},"title":"All Eyes on SCOTUS: Supreme Court to Issue Climate Endangerment Finding Ruling \u2013 To Decide if EPA, or Congress, has authority to regulate CO2","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"30\/06\/2022","format":false,"excerpt":"From Climate Depot The case before the U.S. Supreme Court is West Virginia vs. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).The primary plaintiff of the case is West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey; he is joined by attorney generals from Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South\u2026","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/image-122.png?fit=1024%2C512&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/image-122.png?fit=1024%2C512&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/image-122.png?fit=1024%2C512&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/image-122.png?fit=1024%2C512&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":259208,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=259208","url_meta":{"origin":345939,"position":3},"title":"SCOTUS KILLS WOTUS: Enormous Setback for Obama Era EPA Power Grab","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"26\/05\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Enormous setback for the fanatics at the EPA who would regulate ever puddle or ditch they could find.","rel":"","context":"In \"EPA\"","block_context":{"text":"EPA","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=epa"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/image-349.png?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/image-349.png?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/image-349.png?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/image-349.png?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/image-349.png?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":206835,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=206835","url_meta":{"origin":345939,"position":4},"title":"Alarmist dismay as US Supreme Court rules against EPA on climate regulation powers","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"02\/07\/2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Verdict [image credit: coindesk.com] Democracy overseeing the flow of EPA climate edicts? A \u201ahuge blow\u2018, say alarmists, as\u00a0over-the-top reactions\u00a0from some of the usual suspects pour in.\u2013 \u2013 \u2013This means Congress will now have to pass off on any climate regulations,\u00a0says Energy Live News. In what\u2019s been considered a blow to\u2026","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/0Screenshot-2022-07-02-205905.png?fit=836%2C518&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/0Screenshot-2022-07-02-205905.png?fit=836%2C518&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/0Screenshot-2022-07-02-205905.png?fit=836%2C518&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/0Screenshot-2022-07-02-205905.png?fit=836%2C518&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":283477,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=283477","url_meta":{"origin":345939,"position":5},"title":"The Supreme Court of Canada\u2019s Reality Check on Trudeau\u2019s Climate Impact Act","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"16\/10\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Canada-Court-Chaimber Canada\u2019s natural resources industries won a victory in the Supreme Court of Canada. Alberta_Oil_Industry_Facts From Watts Up With That? In a recent ruling that sent shockwaves through the corridors of Canadian power, the Supreme Court of Canada delivered a blow to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau\u2019s environmental aspirations. The court\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"Canada\"","block_context":{"text":"Canada","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=canada"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/0Canada-Court-Chaimber.jpg?fit=1200%2C777&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/0Canada-Court-Chaimber.jpg?fit=1200%2C777&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/0Canada-Court-Chaimber.jpg?fit=1200%2C777&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/0Canada-Court-Chaimber.jpg?fit=1200%2C777&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/0Canada-Court-Chaimber.jpg?fit=1200%2C777&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/345939","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/121246920"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=345939"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/345939\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":345946,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/345939\/revisions\/345946"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/345944"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=345939"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=345939"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=345939"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}