## Supreme Court Upholds EPA's Climate Regulation Amid Conservative Challenge

In a significant decision on climate policy, the Supreme Court, with its current 6-3 conservative majority, has declined emergency requests from Republican-led states and industry groups to block an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulation aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The decision marks a notable shift, as recent rulings had cast doubt on the court's willingness to uphold major regulatory actions.

An EPA spokesperson expressed the agency's enthusiasm for implementing the rule, which promises to deliver up to $370 billion in net benefits for climate and public health over the next 20 years through the use of proven, cost-effective control technologies.

Justice Clarence Thomas indicated he would have granted the application, while Justice Samuel Alito did not participate in the decision. Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch acknowledged the challengers' strong likelihood of success in some arguments but noted that intervention is unnecessary at this point since compliance deadlines begin in June.

West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, a key figure in the opposition, argued that the regulation unfairly removes critical decision-making power from states and mandates the use of impractical technologies in real-world settings. The new EPA rule centers on "carbon capture" technology, which extracts carbon dioxide from power plant emissions and stores it underground, aiming to mitigate climate change contributions.

Environmental advocates have praised the court's action, emphasizing the regulation's importance in combating climate-induced disasters. Vicki Patton of the Environmental Defense Fund highlighted the worsening impact of climate change on people's lives as a compelling reason for such regulations.

Should Donald Trump return to the presidency, his administration could potentially attempt to reverse the Biden administration's efforts to limit emissions. The EPA's new rule follows the Supreme Court's 2022 decision that limited the agency's authority under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act to regulate overall emissions from power plants, focusing instead on individual facilities.

Opponents of the regulation argue it resembles the previously struck-down rule, suggesting it imposes significant, unwarranted changes on the nation's power sector. Despite these claims, an appeals court ruled in July that this regulation does not fall under the "major questions" doctrine, as it appropriately targets emission limits for individual plants, a task within the EPA's scope.

In court filings, the opposition contended that the new rule attempts to inflict "major, jarring shifts" on the national power market. Despite acknowledging the potential of carbon capture, they maintain it is unfeasible on the rule's proposed scale and timeline. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar defended the regulation, asserting the EPA's well-supported authority to issue it, reinforced by extensive scientific and technical analysis.

Prelogar also reassured that plants would not be required to fully comply until 2030, giving them ample time to adapt. The Biden administration has emphasized the importance of carbon capture in its climate strategy, bolstered by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, which expanded tax credits to promote economic viability for the technology.