Supreme Court Upholds Biden Administration's Methane and Mercury Emissions Regulations

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday upheld key Biden administration regulations aimed at reducing methane emissions from oil and gas facilities and curbing mercury and other toxic pollutants from coal-fired power plants, despite challenges from Republican-led states and industry groups.

In separate decisions, the court declined to block two Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations without providing any comment or noted dissents. These cases will continue to be litigated in lower courts.

The first ruling leaves in place an EPA regulation finalized in March, which aims to cut methane emissions by up to 80% over the next 14 years. Methane, a potent greenhouse gas that is 80 times more effective at trapping heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide, is a major contributor to global warming. The regulation was challenged by several Republican states, led by Oklahoma, and various oil and gas industry groups.

In the second decision, the court rejected an emergency application to block an EPA regulation tightening existing restrictions on mercury and other hazardous pollutants from coal-fired power plants. This rule, part of the Clean Air Act, targets pollutants such as arsenic, chromium, and mercury, with the EPA estimating that the new standards will deliver $300 million in health benefits by reducing exposure to carcinogens.

David Doniger, a lawyer from the Natural Resources Defense Council, praised the rulings, calling them a victory for essential climate and health protections. "The Supreme Court has sensibly rejected two efforts by industry to halt critical safeguards," he said, adding that the court should follow the same approach regarding the EPA's carbon emissions standards for power plants, which are still being challenged in court.

EPA spokesman Remmington Belford welcomed the decisions, stating that the methane regulation would provide significant climate and health benefits, while the mercury rule would require power plants to meet modern air pollution standards. Meanwhile, Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond, who led the challenge against the methane regulation, expressed disappointment but acknowledged the court's decision.

The legal challenge to the methane regulation centers on claims that the EPA is overstepping its authority under the Clean Air Act. Industry groups have argued that the regulation constitutes an "authoritarian national command" and goes beyond what the law allows. The states involved in the challenge also argued that the Clean Air Act was not intended to address climate change and that the Biden administration is using it to shut down power plants in favor of cleaner energy sources.

However, Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, representing the Biden administration, dismissed these concerns, asserting that the EPA's emission guidelines do not infringe on states' rights. She emphasized that the new standards are a model for states to follow, but they are not mandatory.

The mercury regulation, issued under the Obama administration in 2012 and tightened this year by the Biden administration, has already led to significant reductions in harmful air pollutants. The updated rule is expected to further limit emissions and reduce public health risks from exposure to toxic metals.