FINALLY DID THE RIGHT THING
Methane emissions generated by the oil and gas industry are targeted by a new Biden administration regulation that is under legal challenge. The Supreme Court on Friday declined to issue a stay against its implementation.
Methane emissions generated by the oil and gas industry are targeted by a new Biden administration regulation that is under legal challenge. The Supreme Court on Friday declined to issue a stay against its implementation.
Photo by Guy WF Loftus/Wikimedia Commons
Oct. 4 (UPI) -- The Supreme Court on Friday refused to issue a temporary halt to the implementation of new Biden administration rules limiting the release of methane from oil and gas production sites.
In an unsigned order and without further comment, the high court turned down a request from a coalition of Republican-led states and fossil fuel companies seeking a temporary stay to block the Environmental Protection Agency from rolling out the methane rule, as well as another new rule requiring fossil fuel-fired power plants to reduce their emissions of metallic toxins such as mercury.
The matter now goes back to lower courts, where the rules' legality will be the subject of further arguments.
The proposed methane rule was announced by the Biden administration in January. The EPA describes methane as a "super pollutant" more potent than carbon dioxide and responsible for approximately one-third of the climate warming from greenhouse gases occurring today and identifies the oil and natural gas sector as the largest industrial source of methane emissions in the United States.
The rule sets out how companies would be charged for emissions above the levels set by Congress in the Inflation Reduction Act. That law calls for fines, or "waste emissions charges," of $900 per metric ton in 2024, increasing to $1,200 for 2025, and $1,500 for 2026 and beyond.
Meanwhile, the EPA's suite of new coal-fired power plant rules was finalized in April. Among its provisions are a requirement for existing coal-fired and new natural gas-fired power plants to control 90% of their carbon pollution and a 70% reduction in the existing emissions standards for mercury from existing lignite-fired sources.
The methane rule, however, was quickly opposed by the American Petroleum Institute, which called on Congress to repeal it as an "incoherent, confusing regulatory regime that will only stifle innovation and undermine our ability to meet rising energy demand."
Also joining in opposition was a group of 24 Republican state attorneys general, who filed suit in March.
Led by Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond, they called the proposed EPA rule a "blatant attack on America's oil and gas industry, adding that if the regulation went into effect, it would "cost Oklahoma countless jobs, devastate the oil and gas industry, and force us to pay significantly higher energy prices."
They argued the Clean Air Act never was meant to favor one type of energy over another, in this case, promoting clean energy sources over fossil fuels.
Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, however, dismissed that interpretation in court filings, maintaining that states' rights were not being overridden by the EPA rules.
Oct. 4 (UPI) -- The Supreme Court on Friday refused to issue a temporary halt to the implementation of new Biden administration rules limiting the release of methane from oil and gas production sites.
In an unsigned order and without further comment, the high court turned down a request from a coalition of Republican-led states and fossil fuel companies seeking a temporary stay to block the Environmental Protection Agency from rolling out the methane rule, as well as another new rule requiring fossil fuel-fired power plants to reduce their emissions of metallic toxins such as mercury.
The matter now goes back to lower courts, where the rules' legality will be the subject of further arguments.
The proposed methane rule was announced by the Biden administration in January. The EPA describes methane as a "super pollutant" more potent than carbon dioxide and responsible for approximately one-third of the climate warming from greenhouse gases occurring today and identifies the oil and natural gas sector as the largest industrial source of methane emissions in the United States.
The rule sets out how companies would be charged for emissions above the levels set by Congress in the Inflation Reduction Act. That law calls for fines, or "waste emissions charges," of $900 per metric ton in 2024, increasing to $1,200 for 2025, and $1,500 for 2026 and beyond.
Meanwhile, the EPA's suite of new coal-fired power plant rules was finalized in April. Among its provisions are a requirement for existing coal-fired and new natural gas-fired power plants to control 90% of their carbon pollution and a 70% reduction in the existing emissions standards for mercury from existing lignite-fired sources.
The methane rule, however, was quickly opposed by the American Petroleum Institute, which called on Congress to repeal it as an "incoherent, confusing regulatory regime that will only stifle innovation and undermine our ability to meet rising energy demand."
Also joining in opposition was a group of 24 Republican state attorneys general, who filed suit in March.
Led by Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond, they called the proposed EPA rule a "blatant attack on America's oil and gas industry, adding that if the regulation went into effect, it would "cost Oklahoma countless jobs, devastate the oil and gas industry, and force us to pay significantly higher energy prices."
They argued the Clean Air Act never was meant to favor one type of energy over another, in this case, promoting clean energy sources over fossil fuels.
Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, however, dismissed that interpretation in court filings, maintaining that states' rights were not being overridden by the EPA rules.
No comments:
Post a Comment