Supreme Court Upholds Biden's Regulations to Curb Methane and Mercury Emissions

We've been informed that the Supreme Court of the United States has retained the Biden administration's regulations that aim to reduce methane emissions from oil and gas facilities. Methane is a significant contributor to climate change, being a greenhouse gas that is 80 times more potent than carbon dioxide in trapping heat once released into the atmosphere. As a result, the previous regulation was finalized with the intention of cutting methane emissions by up to 80 percent over the next 14 years.

The regulation has faced challenges from Republican states, led by Oklahoma, as well as various oil and gas industry groups. In their court filings, the challengers characterized the regulation as an "authoritarian national command from the EPA" and claimed that it exceeded the authority granted under the Clean Air Act. They argued that the regulation infringed upon the role of states in implementing emissions reduction programs. However, Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, representing the Biden administration, dismissed these concerns, asserting that the EPA had not overstepped its boundaries and that the emissions guidelines allowed states to determine their own regulations.

Mercury Emissions Regulation

In addition to the methane regulation, the Supreme Court also dismissed an attempt to block the EPA regulation aimed at curbing emissions of mercury and other toxic pollutants from coal-fired power plants. According to the EPA, this regulation is less sweeping in its implications. It tightens existing regulations on mercury and other metals such as arsenic and chromium. The EPA stated that the previous regulation, introduced by the Obama administration, had already significantly reduced harmful air toxic pollutants. The new regulation is expected to further limit emissions of mercury and other pollutants, providing health benefits estimated at $300 million by reducing exposure to carcinogens.

Impacts of the Decisions

The Supreme Court's decision to uphold the Biden administration's regulations is seen as a significant victory for environmental advocates. The rejection of the emergency applications signifies a commitment to implementing measures that address climate change and protect public health. The regulations aim to mitigate harmful emissions, including methane and mercury, which pose threats to the environment and human well-being.

While the court's decision is being celebrated by environmental groups, it has met with disappointment from industry representatives and certain state officials. Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond, who led the challenge to the methane regulation, expressed respect for the court's decision despite his disappointment. The legal battles surrounding these regulations are likely to continue as stakeholders seek to navigate and contest the implementation of these measures.