Trump released the letter from the National Archive where they originally asked for the classified documents back, and no one is really sure why he released it.
Did SCOTUS really rule that EPA couldn't regulate CO2 under the clean air act? I don't think that's what happened. I thought environmentalists were worried SCOTUS would rule that way in West Virginia v. EPA, but then Roberts wrote a fairly narrow opinion that said EPA couldn't use generation shifting, but it still left in tact plenty of other feasible ways to regulate CO2.
So, my understanding was that while Roberts left the door open to other ways of regulating CO2, the reason they were setting up *any* limits was that CO2 wasn't something the legislature explicitly said the EPA should be regulating.
The article you linked seems very high level, and I can't find it making the claim you're making. I think you can get a more direct answer from the latest Strict Scrutiny podcast with Sen. Whitehouse at the 54 minute mark. (There's also a David Roberts interview with a law professor that concurs.)
And imo, even if the clean air act said CO2 was a pollutant, Roberts still would've ruled that generation shifting violates the major questions doctrine. If your theory was right, that regulating CO2 is a major question that congress has to explicitly grant authority for, then all of EPAs CO2 reduction goals would be out
I think you must be right, which is a shame, because regulating based on point sources is going to be less efficient than addressing the problem system-wide
Here's what I found doing more research on the subject:
Did SCOTUS really rule that EPA couldn't regulate CO2 under the clean air act? I don't think that's what happened. I thought environmentalists were worried SCOTUS would rule that way in West Virginia v. EPA, but then Roberts wrote a fairly narrow opinion that said EPA couldn't use generation shifting, but it still left in tact plenty of other feasible ways to regulate CO2.
So, my understanding was that while Roberts left the door open to other ways of regulating CO2, the reason they were setting up *any* limits was that CO2 wasn't something the legislature explicitly said the EPA should be regulating.
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/the-supreme-court-curbed-epas-power-to-regulate-carbon-emissions-from-power-plants-what-comes-next/
The article you linked seems very high level, and I can't find it making the claim you're making. I think you can get a more direct answer from the latest Strict Scrutiny podcast with Sen. Whitehouse at the 54 minute mark. (There's also a David Roberts interview with a law professor that concurs.)
And imo, even if the clean air act said CO2 was a pollutant, Roberts still would've ruled that generation shifting violates the major questions doctrine. If your theory was right, that regulating CO2 is a major question that congress has to explicitly grant authority for, then all of EPAs CO2 reduction goals would be out
I think you must be right, which is a shame, because regulating based on point sources is going to be less efficient than addressing the problem system-wide
Here's what I found doing more research on the subject:
https://rhg.com/research/supreme-court-2030-climate-target