DeepSummary
The episode discusses the Supreme Court's recent decision to temporarily stop the EPA from enforcing its 'good neighbor rule,' which aimed to limit air pollution drifting across state lines. POLITICO's Alex Guillén explains that the ruling is a setback for the Biden administration's environmental protection efforts, as it limits the EPA's regulatory authority.
Guillén provides context on the Clean Air Act's 'good neighbor provision,' which requires states to curb pollution that impacts air quality in other downwind states. The EPA issued a federal rule covering 21 states, but some states opposed it and obtained stays, resulting in a patchwork situation where only some states were still subject to the rule.
The episode also covers the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's approval of Venture Global's mammoth CP2 liquefied natural gas facility, which sets up a larger fight for the Biden administration over permitting new LNG export plants.
Key Episodes Takeaways
- The Supreme Court temporarily blocked the EPA's 'good neighbor rule' aimed at limiting interstate air pollution, dealing a setback to the Biden administration's environmental agenda.
- The ruling limits the EPA's regulatory authority and could influence how lower courts approach staying environmental regulations in the future.
- The decision could lead to increased air pollution in the near term, as power plants may choose not to run pollution controls if not required by the regulation.
- The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approved a major liquefied natural gas export facility, setting up a broader fight over the Biden administration's pause on new LNG permits.
- The episode highlights the ongoing tension between the Biden administration's environmental goals and legal challenges from states and industry groups.
- The Supreme Court's conservative majority appears skeptical of the EPA's regulatory approach, signaling potential future roadblocks for the administration's environmental policies.
- The ruling underscores the significant impact that the Supreme Court's composition can have on the federal government's ability to implement environmental regulations.
- The decision could have negative consequences for air quality in downwind states, potentially leading to further regulatory requirements in the future.
Top Episodes Quotes
- “It's not great. This was one of the more important regulations of Biden's first term here, even if maybe it was a little bit more under the radar than some of the flashier climate regulations that most people have heard of.“ by Alex Guillén
- “Basically what the majority ruled was that EPA had not properly explained how the plan would change if some states dropped out of it.“ by Alex Guillén
- “So what we're going to see is one more pollution than we would have because it costs money to run pollution controls, and probably a lot of power plants are going to choose not to do that if they aren't required to under the regulation.“ by Alex Guillén
- “It might move the goalposts for lower courts when they're deciding whether to stay rules.“ by Alex Guillén
Entities
Person
Organization
Company
Episode Information
POLITICO Energy
POLITICO
6/28/24