The U.S. Supreme Court has limited the ability of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to regulate power plant greenhouse gas emissions, and though the court’s opinion referred to a fairly narrow provision within the Clean Air Act, the ruling potentially places broad restrictions on the ability of federal agencies to enact regulations to address the climate crisis, according to several sources.

The key question in West Virginia v. EPA—a decision released on June 30, the final day of the court’s term—was whether EPA exceeded its authority in re-interpreting statutory language within the federal Clean Air Act, specifically Section 111(d), to set emission-reduction goals beyond individual power plants to entire systems in its 2015 Clean Power Plan. In rereading that provision of the statute, the Obama administration’s EPA said it had authority to help facilitate the U.S. energy transition from coal-fired power to cleaner natural gas and renewables.

该国最高法院在其6-3的裁决中裁定，EPA超越了其权力。

同样在6月30日，斯蒂芬·布雷耶（Stephen Breyer）大法官在中午后就正式辞职，因为他宣布在法庭上服役27年后宣布。他发誓，法院的最新法官Ketanji Brown-Jackson在职业生涯的早期就担任过Breyer的职务，并被普遍期望成为替补席上更加自由的法官之一。

Michael Haggarty, associate managing director of Moody’s Investors Service, said in a statement that the June 30 decision will have “little impact on the credit quality or carbon transition-related capital expenditure plans of U.S. regulated utilities, which are being driven more by customer and investor preferences, the declining cost of renewable energy and individual state energy policies.” But he said it will likely “reduce the risk of an accelerated carbon transition timeline driven by federal policy that could adversely affect utility credit, as it is unlikely the U.S. Congress will act as quickly or deliberately as EPA would have.”

环境al groups say they fear that time is running out to address the climate crisis, and that an accelerated timeline is exactly what is needed.

意见

首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨（John Roberts）为法院写作：“将二氧化碳排放限制为将迫使全国范围内过渡到使用煤炭发电的水平可能是[明智的解决方案]。但是，国会授予EPA在第111（d）节中自行采用这样的监管计划是不合理的。如此规模和后果的决定取决于国会本身，或者根据[IT]的明确代表团行事的代理机构。”

罗伯茨（Roberts）引用了主要问题学说，该学说适用于机构主张高度结果的规则或权力，可能超出了国会预期的范围。他写道：“这是一个主要的问题。”罗伯茨说，在四十年的时间里，EPA传统上已经查看了第111（d）条，与个人固定来源有关，而不是整个系统。EPA的重新解释断言：“国会隐含地任命[机构]，并且独自一人平衡了国家政策的许多至关重要的考虑。...几乎没有理由认为国会将这样的决定分配给该机构。”

In their dissent, Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Justices Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, wrote: “Today, the Court strips the Environmental Protection Agency of the power Congress gave it to respond to ‘the most pressing environmental challenge of our time,’” as stated in the landmark case Massachusetts v. EPA, which gave EPA authority to regulate greenhouse gasses.

西弗吉尼亚州诉EPA案的决定不仅遏制了该机构从发电厂调节二氧化碳的权力，而且还减少了各州和市政当局的选择，以及为他们工作的工程师和承包商，都利用了它们来对抗它们。根据意见，国会将需要通过专门授权创建上限和交易系统或其他新计划以限制排放的法律。“对于国会来说，授权受监管的来源使用交易来遵守预设上限，或者必须基于某些科学，客观标准（例如国家环境空气质量标准）的上限。仅授权EPA在机构认为合适的地方设置盖子本身是另一回事。”罗伯茨写道。

美国相关总承包商公共事务执行副总裁Brian Turmail在一封电子邮件中说，AGC正在审查该裁决，以评估其可能如何影响成员。他说：“面临的挑战是，该裁决似乎并没有禁止EPA采取未来的行动，它只是确定了[机构如何]到目前为止的行政问题。”“考虑到EPA仍在制定一项法规，以对发电厂的温室气体排放设定限制，真正的问题是该裁决将对该机构的未决规则产生什么影响。”

Jeff Holmstead, a former chief of EPA’s office of air and radiation and now a partner at Bracewell, says that he expects the ruling to have little practical impact on EPA, which is already working on a new rule, had no plans to resurrect the never-enacted Clean Power Plan and was not planning to rely on Section 111(d). “I don’t think this changes [EPA’s] plans very much,” he told ENR.

限制调节排放的能力

该决定并未提高雪佛龙诉自然资源国防委员会的幽灵，这是1984年最高法院的一项裁决，该裁决使联邦机构广泛酌情决定解释与其职责范围有关的法律的含义和国会意图。环境拥护者担心雪佛龙的逆转可能会严重限制机构颁布任何法规的能力。

But several sources said that although the court didn’t refer to the Chevron case, it ignored precedent that has been applied for more than 30 years. Maya van Rossum, an environmental activist and founder of Green Amendments for All, a policy-oriented nonprofit, notes, “They didn’t explicitly overrule it, but if they are going to ignore Chevron deference, then they might as well overrule it…. If they are not going to apply the precedent, what value is the precedent?”

Bracewell的Holmstead同意。多年来，学说的主要问题一直是判例法的一部分。他说：“但是他们确实接受了这种学说，并以我认为对监管状态的未来非常重要的方式拼出了这一学说。”

As a result, recent efforts by agencies such as the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to enact carbon-reduction regulations may not hold up to legal challenges, he said.

Another potential casualty could be the U.S. Transportation Dept.’s new proposal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector, announced June 8. Nick Goldstein, vice president of regulatory affairs and legal issues for the American Road & Transportation Builders Association, says, “The DOT is not staying within its lane. It’s going into an area traditionally reserved for EPA. So, we don’t think there’s the authority for the DOT to do this.”

what’s Next?

EPA计划的新法规将提供比特朗普统治更多的保护，但该机构希望它在法律上仍然可以辩护。切萨皮克湾基金会（Chesapeake Bay Foundation）指出，虽然该决定范围缩小了联邦政府根据《联邦清洁空气法》的权力，但“它为EPA留出了履行其应对发电厂碳排放的责任的空间。”

In a statement, EPA Administrator Michael Regan said that while he is “deeply disappointed” in the ruling, the agency is “committed to using the full scope of [its] authorities to protect communities and reduce the pollution that is driving climate change. We will move forward to provide certainty and transparency for the energy sector, which will support industry’s ongoing efforts to grow our clean energy economy.”

looking ahead to the new Supreme Court term beginning in October, proponents of wider protections for the environment and a range of social issues are worried. The court will hear another blockbuster case, Sackett v. EPA, on the first day of the new session. The justices will consider the extent to which the Clean Water Act protects ephemeral and intermittent streams that do not have a direct surface connection to navigable bodies of water. The West Virginia v. EPA ruling, and the court’s decided tilt to the right “is a harbinger of things to come…. It does not bode well” for environmental cases, von Rossum says.