Trump’s big gamble to gut US power plant emissions rules fails in court, opening door for powerful new climate rules

day before Joe Biden’s inauguration, he got a big judicial win for his climate nda. case involved plans for cutting power plant emissions and a big gamble by Trump administration.

Nearly a third of U.S. carbon emissions driving climate change come from electricity generation.

To try to cut those emissions, Obama administration in 2014 issued Clean Power Plan – a set of rules targeting high-emitting power plants, particularly those burning coal.

industry sued, and before Clean Power Plan could go into effect, Supreme Court suspended it so legal disputes could be resolved. It was still in limbo in 2019 when Donald Trump’s Environmental Protection ncy formally repealed Clean Power Plan and issued an extremely weak substitute called Affordable Clean Energy rule that had far looser limits on pollution.In issuing its own rule, Trump administration took a big gamble. Trump’s goal was t only to replace Obama administration rule but to ensure that future president could ever adopt anything similar.

Trump’s substitute rule merely required limited retrofits of existing coal fired power plants, whereas Obama’s rule involved moving power system toward cleaner energy sources. To prevent similar future actions, Trump’s EPA placed all its chips on an argument that EPA had legal power to do anything beyond retrofits.On Jan. 19, 2021, a U.S. appeals court rejected Trump EPA’s sole legal argument , potentially opening door for Biden to issue something like Clean Power Plan 2.0.

Getting to next Clean Power Plan appeals court vacated Trump’s rule and sent it back to EPA to reconsider, with just hours left in Trump administration.

It’s conceivable but unlikely that one of or parties to case can get U.S. Supreme Court to intervene at this point. When re’s a change in administrations, courts routinely grant a request to hold case until government can reconsider its position. appeals court ackwledged that Clean Air Act requires EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. However, court considered original Obama plan moot because it had been overtaken by events, so Biden’s EPA will have to start anew in crafting its own approach.Unless Supreme Court jumps in, ruling means his administration can use an approach similar to Obama’s, involving greater use of renewable power sources, shifting from coal power to natural gas, using biomass and or alternatives.

process is complicated. Biden administration will have to set requirements for how much each state has to cut power plant emissions. n it would have to review states’ plans for achieving limits. result could be major reductions in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. administration will have some help. Biden’s leadership team includes Obama EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, who oversaw development of Clean Power Plan.

biggest unkwn is how a conservative 6-3 Supreme Court might rule on a future Biden plan.

As a law professor who has worked on energy issues for years, I believe it would be unwise for Biden EPA to put all its bets on using this one tool for reducing emissions, given risk that Supreme Court could reject it. re are or tools. Still, ruling opens up possibilities.‘A series of tortured misreadings’

Both Trump and Obama rules relied on section 111(d) of Clean Air Act, which gives EPA authority to regulate emissions from stationary sources, such as power plants. However, Trump EPA reinterpreted law as allowing EPA to consider only a narrow category of regulations. It argued that it could only require coal-fired power plants to eng in very limited retrofits. practical effect was to eliminate any meaningful reductions in carbon emissions.

appeals court determined that law simply didn’t say what Trump’s EPA claimed.

EPA has ample discretion in carrying out its mandate. But it may t shirk its responsibility by imagining new limitations that plain langu of statute does t clearly require  majority wrote in a 2-1 opinion. y described EPA’s actions as a tortured series of misreadings.

dissenting judge did t contest this point. Instead, he claimed that even Trump EPA’s token regulations of emissions from coal plants went too far. majority had little trouble rebutting his arguments, which even Trump administration had rejected.

upshot of court’s ruling was that Clean Air Act does allow EPA to use a broad range of tools to cut carbon emissions.

Trump’s regulation rollback losses

Trump’s ACE rule was typical of many of his rollbacks, in that it swung for fences. It is t only time where Trump ncies reread statutes in a way designed to minimize regulation of industry. In or situations , administration took or kinds of legal risks in pursuit of outcomes it wanted: igring criticisms made in public tice period rar than rebutting m, cherry-picking evidence in obvious ways, or even trying to evade public tice altoger.

So far, track record of Trump’s rollbacks in court has been dismal. appeals court ruling in power plant case merely confirms that many of rollbacks rested on shaky legal grounds. se legal flaws will make it easier for Biden to undo many of rollbacks.