WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday left in place Biden administration regulations aimed at curbing oil and gas facility emissions of methane, a major contributor to climate change.
In a separate action, the court also rejected a bid to block a regulation aimed at curbing emissions of mercury and other toxic pollutants from coal-fired power plants.
In both cases, the court rejected emergency applications without comment, with no noted dissents. Litigation against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will continue in lower courts.
A separate emergency application seeking to block Biden regulations concerning carbon emissions from coal- and gas-fired power plants remains pending.
“The Supreme Court has sensibly rejected two efforts by industry to halt critical safeguards,” said David Doniger, a lawyer at the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group. “The court should do the same with the effort to block EPA’s power plant carbon pollution standards.”
EPA spokesman Remmington Belford welcomed the two decisions, saying that the methane rule will “deliver major climate and health benefits” while the mercury regulation will require plants to “meet up-to-date standards for hazardous air pollutants.”
A spokesman for Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond, who led the challenge to the methane regulation, expressed disappointment in the decision. “But we respect the court’s decision,” he added.
The court’s decision in the methane case means that an EPA regulation that was finalized in March and is intended to cut methane emissions by up to 80 percent over the next 14 years will remain in effect.
Methane is a greenhouse gas that is 80 times more potent than carbon dioxide at trapping heat once emitted into the atmosphere, hence contributing to global warming.
The regulation has been challenged by Republican states led by Oklahoma and various oil and gas industry groups.
The challengers portray the regulation in stark terms, with industry groups calling it an “authoritarian national command from the EPA” in their court filing. They say the regulation goes further than is allowed under the Clean Air Act, which gives states a role in implementing emissions reduction programs.
The states similarly argued in court papers that the administration is using provisions of the Clean Air Act that were never envisioned to address climate change to “shut down power plants in favor of other sources of generation.”
Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, representing the Biden administration, dismissed those concerns, saying in her own filing that the agency has not trampled over the states in issuing its emissions guidelines.
“Like all EPA emission guidelines under that provision, those guidelines allow the states to decide what particular regulations to adopt,” she wrote. New presumptive standards issued by the EPA “simply give states a model that they may rely on if they choose,” she added.
The mercury regulation has less sweeping impacts, according to the EPA.
In that case, the court rejected an emergency request filed by conservative states and industry groups that want to block the EPA regulation issued this year.
Under the Clean Air Act provision in question, the EPA is required to curb hazardous pollutants while taking costs into account.
The regulation tightens existing regulations on mercury and other metals, such as arsenic and chromium.
In announcing the rule, the EPA said in April that the earlier 2012 regulation introduced by the Obama administration “has driven sharp reductions in harmful air toxic pollutants.” The new regulation would further limit emissions of mercury and other pollutants, providing health benefits of $300 million by reducing exposure to carcinogens, it said.
This article was originally published on NBCNews.com
