What was his decision?
The theory is that what the EPA did in the 2015 administration, which included reducing emissions from power companies, exceeded the agency’s mandate.
“Reducing carbon dioxide emissions to a level that would force global change from coal-fired power generation could be the best solution to today’s problems,” the statement read. “But it is not true that Congress gave the EPA the power to adopt a self-regulatory system.”
Only Congress has the power to make “a decision on size and its consequences,” it continues.
The ruling could have “further implications,” says Deborah Sivas, a professor of environmental law at Stanford University. The Court does not simply restrict what the EPA can do in the future, it adds; This concept “seems to be a major issue in respecting organizations,” meaning that some organizations may also experience future weaknesses.
The verdict, which is the latest in a number of recent court cases, was strongly influenced by opinion. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the public opinion, and he was joined by his law-abiding colleagues: Justices Samuel Alito, Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Clarence Thomas. Judges Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor disagreed.
What is the decision?
The key question in the case was the EPA’s ability to control carbon dioxide and what it must be allowed to do. This question was repeated in the 2015 EPA law called the Clean Power Plan.
The Clean Power Plan aims to emit greenhouse gases from the power plant, requiring every government to develop a plan to reduce emissions and provide them with government.
Several countries and special groups immediately opposed the Clean Power Plan when it was released, calling it a crackdown on the organization, and the Supreme Court suspended it in 2016. Following the abolition of the policy during the presidency of Donald Trump and others. back and forth, a district court in Washington, DC, in January 2021 ruled that White Electricity was in the hands of the EPA.