The Supreme Court limited the power of the EPA — so what happens now?

On Thursday, the Supreme Court changed the rules of the game in the race to limit global warming by constricting the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to mandate carbon emissions.

Specifically, the court ruled in West Virginia v. EPA that it was beyond the authority of the EPA to dictate that power generation should be shifted from one source, like coal, to another source, like wind or solar, and that such a large mandate should only come from Congress.

“There is little reason to think Congress assigned such decisions to the Agency,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the 6-3 decision, which was joined by the other conservative members of the court. “The basic and consequential tradeoffs involved in such a choice are ones that Congress would likely have intended for itself.”

The decision relied on a recent framework called “the major questions doctrine,” which argues that governmental agencies are there to execute the will of the Congress and its elected leaders, not to decide those matters themselves. By regulating such massive components of the economy as how power is generated, the EPA was overreaching, the ruling said.

“The Constitution does not authorize agencies to use pen-and-phone regulations as substitutes for laws passed by the people’s representatives,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in a concurring opinion.

Justice Elena Kagan wrote an excoriating dissent arguing that it’s dangerous to take any power away from the EPA just when the United States — and much of the world — is missing its decarbonization targets. “If the current rate of emissions continues, children born this year could live to see parts of the Eastern seaboard swallowed by the ocean,” Kagan wrote.

“Whatever else this Court may know about, it does not have a clue about how to address climate change. And let’s say the obvious: The stakes here are high. Yet the Court today prevents congressionally authorized agency action to curb power plants’ carbon dioxide emissions. The Court appoints itself—instead of Congress or the expert agency — the decisionmaker on climate policy. I cannot think of many things more frightening,” Kagan wrote.

Nonetheless, while the court limited the EPA’s authority, it did not render the agency impotent to address carbon emissions. It can still regulate the greenhouse gas emissions of a specific power plants, among many other things. States can also pass their own laws, although enforcement may be tricky.

In the meantime, while fossil fuel providers will use the decision to delay decarbonization and challenge future laws with litigation, clean energy is getting cheaper, which could accelerate the move away from fossil fuels without government intervention.

EPA Administrator Michael S. Regan said in a statement on Thursday…