US appeals court allows EPA rule on coal-fired power plants to remain in place amid legal challenges
A federal appeals court is allowing a Biden administration rule aimed at limiting planet-warming pollution from coal-fired power plants to remain in place as legal challenges continue
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.In a victory for President Joe Biden's administration, a federal appeals court on Friday ruled that a new federal regulation aimed at limiting planet-warming pollution from coal-fired power plants can remain in force as legal challenges continue.
Industry groups and some Republican-led states had asked the court to block the Environmental Protection Agency rule on an emergency basis, saying it was unattainable and threatened reliability of the nation's power grid.
The EPA rule, announced in April, would force many coal-fired power plants to capture 90% of their carbon emissions or shut down within eight years. The rules are a key part of the Democratic president's pledge to eliminate carbon pollution from the electricity sector by 2035 and economy-wide by 2050.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected the industry request to block the rule, saying the groups had not shown they are likely to succeed on the merits. Nor did the case invoke a major question under a previous Supreme Court ruling, since the EPA claimed only the power to “set emissions limits ... that would reduce pollution by causing the regulated source to operate more cleanly,” the appeals court ruled.
The unanimous ruling also rejected the claim of immediate harm, saying compliance deadlines do not take effect until 2030 or 2032.
The ruling was issued by Judges Patricia Millett, Cornelia Pillard and Neomi Rao. Millett and Pillard were appointed by President Barack Obama, a Democrat, while Rao was named to the court by President Donald Trump, a Republican.
Environmental groups hailed the ruling, saying the court recognized the EPA's legal responsibility to control harmful pollution, including from greenhouse gas emissions. The power sector is the nation’s second-largest contributor to climate change.
“Americans across the nation are suffering from the intense heat waves, extreme storms and flooding and increased wildfires caused by climate pollution,” said Vickie Patton, general counsel of the Environmental Defense Fund, which filed a friend-of-the court brief in the case. The EDF and other groups “will continue to strongly defend EPA’s cost-effective and achievable carbon pollution standards for power plants,” she said.
Meredith Hankins, a lawyer for the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the EPA rule “set reasonable standards for utilities and states to cut their carbon pollution." The searing heat wave hitting much of the nation is a sign of how much the rules are needed, she said.
“The idea that power producers need immediate relief from modest standards that start to kick in eight years from now was obviously absurd,'' Hankins added. West Virginia and other states that challenged the rule “have plenty of time to begin their planning process'' to comply with the rule, she said.
The National Mining Association, which joined the legal challenges, said it would seek an emergency stay from the Supreme Court.
“The stakes couldn’t be higher. The nation’s power supply is already being pushed to the limit, and this rule flies in the face of what the nation’s utilities, grid operators and grid reliability experts tell us is needed to maintain grid reliability,'' said Rich Nolan, the group's president and CEO.
Nolan and other industry leaders said the rule would force the premature closure of power plants that are crucial to maintaining grid reliability even as demand for electricity surges.
Timothy Carroll, a spokesman for the EPA, said the agency was pleased that the court allowed the power plant rule to go into effect while litigation continues.
"EPA’s final standards will significantly reduce emissions of harmful carbon pollution from existing coal-fired power plants, which continue to be the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions from the power sector,'' Carroll said.
The EPA projects that the rule will yield up to $370 billion in climate and health net benefits and avoid nearly 1.4 billion metric tons of carbon pollution through 2047, equivalent to preventing annual emissions of 328 million gasoline-powered cars.
The power plant rule marks the first time the federal government has restricted carbon dioxide emissions from existing coal-fired power plants. The rule also would force future electric plants fueled by coal or natural gas to control up to 90% of their carbon pollution.
___
Follow the AP's coverage of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency at https://apnews.com/hub/us-environmental-protection-agency.