The Supreme Court is about to decide a major climate court case

Photo by Leigh Vogel/Getty Images for NRDC

The Supreme Court is expected to decide this week what tools the federal government can use to fight climate change.

The case, West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, started out as a battle over how much authority the EPA has to force power plants to cut down their pollution, but it has turned into a bigger fight over how much power federal agencies have to enforce all sorts of regulations.

The case is being watched by environmentalists because of the Biden administration's plans to slash CO2 emissions. The Supreme Court is expected to make a decision as soon as Wednesday.

What is West Virginia v. EPA about?

The Clean Air Act lays out the EPA's responsibility to protect the nation's air quality by regulating pollution. The Clean Air Act has led to a drop in pollutants.

The Clean Air Act was used by former President Barack Obama to create the Clean Power Plan. Guidelines for carbon dioxide emissions were set in the new plan. The plan encouraged states to transition to more clean energy by regulating emissions.

The proposal only lasted a short time. The Clean Power Plan was put on hold by the Supreme Court after two dozen states sued the EPA.

The Clean Power Plan was replaced by theAffordable Clean Energy rule. The Obama administration went too far in using the Clean Air Act to push for greenhouse gas pollution cuts across the entire power sector, according to the EPA. The EPA may be able to push a power plant to install equipment that captures CO2 on-site so that it doesn't escape into the atmosphere, but it can't force a state to phase out fossil fuel power plants.

A group of states succeeded in blocking the Trump plan, leaving it up to the EPA to craft a new rule. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of West Virginia. Even though neither Obama nor Trump's greenhouse gas rules went into effect, it's up to the Supreme Court to decide which interpretation sways.

Why is this case important?

The US has a frightfully dirty climate record.

As part of rejoining the Paris climate agreement, the Biden administration committed the US to reduce its planet-warming pollution by at least 50 percent this decade compared to peak pollution levels in 2005. The Biden administration wants the US power sector to be carbon-free by the year 2035. The world faces a critical deadline and this is all to meet it. Climate change needs to be kept under 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels if we want to reach net zero by the year 2050. Millions of people are projected to be exposed to climate-driven disasters beyond that threshold.

Fossil fuel power plants make up the majority of the electrical grid. The power sector accounts for 25% of US greenhouse gas emissions. If the grid runs on carbon-free energy, it will be possible to transition from gas-guzzlers to electric vehicles.

Legislation that would push utilities to use more clean energy is stuck in a congressional stalemate. Executive powers are important for the climate change efforts. The EPA can be used by Biden to crack down on pollution. With a conservative majority in the Supreme Court, a decision could restrict the EPAs power to do that.

The fight is larger than the EPA. Coral Davenport writes for The New York Times about the case of West Virginia v. EPA, which she describes as an attempt to hem in what they call the administrative state, the E.P.A. and other federal agencies that set rules and regulations that affect the American economy. The case is the result of years of scheming to weaken the executive branch's ability to regulate.

How might the Supreme Court rule?

Environmental activists are unlikely to be happy with the makeup of the court.

The court could look at the Clean Air Act and the EPA's authority over power plants in a different way. The Clean Air Act could no longer be used by the EPA to rein in greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. The Clean Air Act might not be the best way to regulate greenhouse gas pollution.

The Supreme Court could look beyond the Clean Air Act's language. The ability of the Biden administration to rely on the executive branch to get anything done on climate change, or other agendas that would require federal agencies to write and enforce rules on industry, is at risk. The court has the power to limit the powers of a federal agency. Courts usually defer to a federal agency's expertise in interpreting ambiguous statutes thanks to a 1984 doctrine called the "Chevron deference". If CO2 isn't explicitly written about in the 1970 Clean Air Act, the EPA may decide that it makes sense to tackle greenhouse gas pollution.

The major questions doctrine states that the court doesn't need to give deference to federal agencies in matters of major national significance that Congress hasn't explicitly written into legislation.

We will probably find out soon. West Virginia v. EPA is one of the four cases that the Supreme Court is expected to give opinions on tomorrow. Environmental advocates and legal experts are on edge.