On October 4, 2024, without opinion and no recorded dissents, the United States Supreme Court handed the Biden Administration two wins on notable climate change regulations, denying emergency stay applications against Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations.
First, in Oklahoma, et al. v. EPA, et al., the Court turned down a request by Oklahoma and industry groups to stay the implementation of EPA’s regulations aimed at curbing oil and gas facility emissions of methane. This decision means that EPA regulations finalized earlier this year and intended to cut methane emissions by up to 80 percent over the next 14 years will remain in effect pending resolution of litigation challenging those regulations.
In the second order, the Court rejected seven combined cases[1] amounting to a bid by 23 Republican-led-states, utility companies, mining companies and industry groups to stay application of EPA’s “Mercury Rule,” which took effect in July and requires coal-fired plants to reduce the emissions of certain “hazardous air pollutants,” including mercury, arsenic, chromium, and nickel. Industry groups have argued that the mercury rule will force power plants to shut down or install equipment that provides only minimal environmental benefits in comparison to the costs.
The original actions in both cases will now proceed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The Court did not rule on a third pending stay request of an EPA rule aimed at decreasing carbon dioxide emissions by power plants.
While the litigation continues, the denials by the Supreme Court contrast with its slate of recent rulings against EPA rulemaking and broader federal executive power that was curtailed in Loper Bright. For forty years, environmental regulations have operated in area known as “agency discretion,” and the impact of Loper Bright was forecasted to curb agencies abilities to create stronger rules regarding emissions, protect endangered species, and protect our waterways. However, these rulings by the Supreme Court have clipped that doomsday scenario somewhat. For now, the EPA will continue to regulate emissions of arsenic, lead, and mercury from coal-powered facilities, as well as methane emissions from oil and gas-powered facilities.
Notes
[1] The combined cases are: NACCO Natural Resources Corp. v. EPA, et al.; Westmoreland Mining Holdings, LLC, et al. v. EPA, et al.; North Dakota, et al. v. EPA, et al.; Midwest Ozone Group v. EPA, et al.; Talen Montana, LLC, et al. v. EPA, et al.; America’s Power, et al. v. EPA, et al.; Natural Rural Electric Cooperative Association, et al. v. EPA, et al.
About Our Author
Rob Fowler serves as the Adams and Reese Environmental Team Leader, assisting clients throughout the firm’s regional and national footprint on environmental matters. Rob has over 28 years of experience in environmental and natural resource law. Rob helps clients navigate the complexities of the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, Resource Conservation & Recovery Act, Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, Endangered Species Act, National Environmental Policy Act, and various historic preservation laws.