Supreme Court Could Further Complicate Climate Change

Will a conservative-leaning Supreme Court continue to complicate climate change goals?

Last year the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 to curtail the authority of the EPA to limit carbon emissions. It said that the ruling violated the “major questions” doctrine which essentially says that major regulations require Congressional authorization. The Court ruled that an Obama-era rule was an overreach because it imposed nationwide standards rather than at a plant level.

That ruling had no immediate impact because the EPA regulation wasn’t in force. But the ruling set the standard for future regulatory goals and placed the onus on Congress to actually do its job. Lord help us.

Recently, the Court agreed to take up another climate-related case that involves the “Chevron deference” which refers to the doctrine of judicial deference given to administrative actions. Basically, this has to do with the rules of engagement between agencies (executive branch), Congress, and the courts.  

If the Court rules in a similar fashion, it will further curtail federal agency’s ability to enact sweeping regulations without Congressional approval. The direct impact could be to language in the IRA that affirmed the EPA’s ability to regulate heat-trapping emissions including vehicle emissions, power plant emission standards, and SEC corporate climate disclosure mandates.

I’m betting that this isn’t going to go well for the executive branch. And on some level, the authority of federal agencies to enact policy has at times gotten out of control. On the other hand, limiting agency power means Congress would need to explicitly enact laws. It’s a dammed if you do, and dammed if you don’t scenario. That is the sad reality of a dysfunctional government and political process.