HUGE VICTORY! Supreme Court LIMITS EPA POWER, deals Biden climate agenda serious blow, RESTORES STATE AUTHORITY ON ENERGY

Earlier this week, I posted: One more blockbuster Supreme Court decision could still be coming. 

And it did. The court  ruled to rein in the vast powers of the alphabet agencies in D.C. that run our lives and return it to legislators whom we elect to create…..

West Virginia vs. the EPA asked whether important policies that impact the lives of all Americans should be made by unelected D.C. bureaucrats or by Congress. This SCOTUS could well decide that ruling by executive agency fiat is no longer acceptable.

“A decision that puts Congress in charge would stall environmental rules intended to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy. Legislators, back in the driver’s seat, would have to debate and go public with the consequences – and costs — of regulations that are now adopted with little buy-in from the public.”

The Supreme Court sharply curtails the authority of the EPA to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions that cause climate change. In a 6-3 ruling, the court sides with conservative states and fossil-fuel companies in adopting a narrow reading of the Clean Air Act.

— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 30, 2022

I applaud the Supreme Court's decision to limit the EPA's powers.

Unelected, climate-crazy bureaucrats don't get to decide what our laws are.

It's time to unleash American energy.

— Rep Andy Biggs (@RepAndyBiggsAZ) June 30, 2022

Supreme Court rules the EPA does NOT have the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emission caps in 6-3 ruling that deals a huge a blow to Biden’s climate agenda

• The court’s ruling prevents Biden from instituting the sort of sweeping emissions rules the EPA tried to implement under the Obama administration
• The case declares it unlawful for federal agencies to make ‘major’ decisions without clear authorization from Congress
• It appears to allow for regulations focused narrowly on capping pollution from smokestacks, but blocks wider rules that set state-by-state targets for emissions

By Morgan Phillips, Dailymail.Com, 30 June 2022:

The Supreme Court ruled in a 6 to 3 decision to restrain the federal government’s ability to regulate emissions at power plants.

The case declares it unlawful for federal agencies to make ‘major’ decisions without clear authorization from Congress. It appears to allow for regulations focused narrowly on capping pollution from smokestacks, but blocks wider rules that set state-by-state targets for emissions reduction or a cap-and-trade system that would trigger a faster shift to clean energy.

‘Capping carbon dioxide emissions at a level that will force a nationwide transition away from the use of coal to generate electricity may be a sensible ‘solution to the crisis of the day,’ Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in his opinion for the court.

But he added that the Clean Air Act does not give the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the authority to do so.

‘A decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself, or an agency acting pursuant to a clear delegation from that representative body,’ he wrote.

The court’s liberals, Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan dissented.

‘Today, the court strips the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of the power Congress gave it to respond to the most pressing environmental challenge of our time,’ Kagan wrote.

The ruling prevents the Biden administration from instituting the sort of sweeping emissions rules the EPA tried to implement under the Obama administration. The Supreme Court put Obama’s Clean Power Plan on hold in 2016, and it never took effect.

The court sided with coal power plants and GOP-led states in West Virginia v. EPA, reviewing an appeals court decision to axe the Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) Rule, a Trump-era regulation that effectively gutted the Clean Power Plan.

Though the Clean Power Plan never took effect, the utility sector met its goals – a 32 percent reduction of carbon pollution from 2005 levels by 2030. The Biden administration had planned to write a fresh regulation and asked the Supreme Court to hold off on stepping in.
The Supreme Court ruled in a 6 to 3 decision to restrain the federal government’s ability to regulate emissions at power plants

The Supreme Court ruled in a 6 to 3 decision to restrain the federal government’s ability to regulate emissions at power plants
The case declares it unlawful for federal agencies to make ‘major’ decisions without clear authorization from Congress

The case declares it unlawful for federal agencies to make ‘major’ decisions without clear authorization from Congress
What the Supreme Court’s decision on West Virginia v. EPA means

The court’s decision could cut back agency power through the so-called ‘major questions’ doctrine, ruling that agencies need express approval from Congress to make ‘major’ decisions’

Agencies’ authority to impose regulations on things like worker safety or internet

The case said the EPA could narrowly regulate smokestack emissions, but not impose broader

The move could force Biden to go through Congress to impose his ambitious climate agenda, where he will likely face gridlock state-by-state targets for emissions reduction

Instead of deciding on an existing rule, the Supreme Court set a precedent for Biden’s future rule, which was expected to fall in line with his goal for the entire U.S. power grid to run on clean energy by 2035.

‘It’s a bad decision and an unnecessary one, but the EPA can still limit greenhouse gases at the source under Section 111 and more broadly through other Clean Air Act provisions. In the wake of this ruling, EPA must use its remaining authority to the fullest,’ said Jason Rylander, an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity’s Climate Law Institute, in a statement.

The question of how much power the EPA has was based on Section 111 of the Clean Air Act, which allows the agency power to set ‘standards of performance’ for air pollutants.

In its decision Thursday, the court took made its most significant climate case since 2007, when justices ruled in Massachusetts v. EPA that greenhouse gasses could be regulated as air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. Faced with deadlock in Congress, President Obama at the time sought to combat climate change by regulating power plants, the largest source of greenhouse gas behind the transportation industry.

The question before the justices was whether Congress must ‘speak with particular clarity when it authorizes executive agencies to address major political and economic questions.’ The court called it the ‘major questions doctrine.’

Some legal scholars worry the case could unravel much of the regulatory state – Biden’s agencies are currently defending in court wetlands protections, limits on car and truck pollution and insurance coverage for birth control.

The Truth Must be Told

Your contribution supports independent journalism

Please take a moment to consider this. Now, more than ever, people are reading Geller Report for news they won't get anywhere else. But advertising revenues have all but disappeared. Google Adsense is the online advertising monopoly and they have banned us. Social media giants like Facebook and Twitter have blocked and shadow-banned our accounts. But we won't put up a paywall. Because never has the free world needed independent journalism more.

Everyone who reads our reporting knows the Geller Report covers the news the media won't. We cannot do our ground-breaking report without your support. We must continue to report on the global jihad and the left's war on freedom. Our readers’ contributions make that possible.

Geller Report's independent, investigative journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe our work is critical in the fight for freedom and because it is your fight, too.

Please contribute here.

or

Make a monthly commitment to support The Geller Report – choose the option that suits you best.

• $25.00 here
• $50.00 here
• $75.00 here
• $100.00 here
• $250.00 here