美国最高法院驳回了由共和党领导的州和行业团体提出的阻止环保署燃煤电厂新规的请求，这是本月保守派多数派第三次暂时维持一项环境法规。该规则要求许多燃煤电厂在八年内捕获90%的碳排放或关闭，尽管最后期限在几年内才生效。挑战者认为，环保署越权并制定了难以达成的标准。国家采矿协会主席兼首席执行官里奇·诺兰表示，他们将继续反对该规则。他表示，该规则将要求发电厂使用负担不起的技术或在全国电力需求预计翻番的时候关闭。他说：“如果允许这项规则生效，对美国人民和经济的影响将是灾难性的。”电力行业是美国第二大气候变化贡献者，该规则是拜登总统承诺到2035年消除电力部门碳污染，到2050年消除全经济范围碳污染的关键部分。自然资源保护委员会表示，新的标准是适度的但至关重要的，法院决定维持这些标准是理性的胜利。“这对经历气候危机影响的数百万美国人来说是一个令人欣慰的消息，”律师梅雷迪思·汉金斯说。

👨‍⚖️ 最高法院驳回了由共和党领导的州和行业团体提出的阻止环保署燃煤电厂新规的请求。该规则要求许多燃煤电厂在八年内捕获90%的碳排放或关闭，尽管最后期限在几年内才生效。挑战者认为，环保署越权并制定了难以达成的标准。 国家采矿协会主席兼首席执行官里奇·诺兰表示，他们将继续反对该规则。他表示，该规则将要求发电厂使用负担不起的技术或在全国电力需求预计翻番的时候关闭。他说：“如果允许这项规则生效，对美国人民和经济的影响将是灾难性的。”

🌎 该规则是拜登总统承诺到2035年消除电力部门碳污染，到2050年消除全经济范围碳污染的关键部分。自然资源保护委员会表示，新的标准是适度的但至关重要的，法院决定维持这些标准是理性的胜利。“这对经历气候危机影响的数百万美国人来说是一个令人欣慰的消息，”律师梅雷迪思·汉金斯说。

⚖️ 尽管如此，最高法院的保守派大法官们在环境法规方面的立场似乎正在发生转变。2022年，大法官们限制了环保署监管发电厂二氧化碳排放的权力。6月，法院阻止了该机构的空气污染治理“睦邻”规则。另一项裁决也可能会使环境法规更难制定和维持。

💰 环保署预计，该规则将带来高达3700亿美元的气候和健康净收益，并避免到2047年近14亿公吨的碳污染，相当于防止每年3.28亿辆汽油动力汽车的排放。

The justices rejected a push from Republican-led states and industry groups to block the Environmental Protection Agency rule, marking the third time this month the conservative majority has left an environmental regulation in place for now.One justice, Clarence Thomas, publicly dissented.Two other conservative justices, Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch, said in a brief order they thought the challengers would likely win on at least some of their claims eventually. But the rule doesn’t need to be blocked now because compliance work wouldn’t have to begin until June 2025 and the case could end up back before the high court relatively quickly, Kavanaugh wrote.Justice Samuel Alito did not take part, likely due to his personal investment in one of the companies challenging the rule, Oklahoma Gas and Electric.The rule requires many coal-fired power plants to capture 90% of their carbon emissions or shut down within eight years, though deadlines do not take effect for several years. The challengers argued that the EPA overstepped and imposed unattainable standards.Rich Nolan, president and CEO of the National Mining Association, said his group would continue to fight the rule. He said it would require power plants to use unaffordable technology or shut down at a time when the nation’s electricity demand is forecast to double. “If this rule is allowed to stand the results for the American people and economy will be catastrophic,” he said,The power industry is the nation’s second-largest contributor to climate change, and the rule is a key part of President Joe Biden’s pledge to eliminate carbon pollution from the electricity sector by 2035 and economy-wide by 2050.The Natural Resources Defense Council said the new standards are modest but vital, and the court’s decision to leave them in place is a win for common sense. “This warrants a sigh of relief from the millions of Americans experiencing the impact of the climate crisis,” said attorney Meredith Hankins. An appeals court had allowed the EPA’s new power plant rule to go into effect.The Supreme Court earlier this month also left two other regulations aimed at reducing industry emissions of planet-warming methane and toxic mercury in place for now.Other environmental regulations have not fared well before the conservative-majority court in recent years. In 2022, the justices limited the EPA’s authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants with a landmark decision. In June, the court halted the agency’s air-pollution-fighting “good neighbor” rule.Another ruling in June, overturning a decades-old decision known colloquially as Chevron, is also expected to make environmental regulations more difficult to set and keep, along with other federal agency actions. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce cited that ruling in court papers supporting the challenge in the coal plant case.Earlier Wednesday, the justices heard arguments in another environmental case that could limit the EPA’s ability to enforce clean water standards. The case involves an unusual dispute between the agency and liberal San Francisco over what the city says are impossibly vague rules for the discharge of untreated sewage into San Francisco Bay and the Pacific Ocean. The city could face fines of between $10 million, in the Biden administration’s view, to $10 billion, in San Francisco’s estimation. The court seemed divided with several conservative justices appearing favorable to San Francisco.A panel of three judges — two nominated by Democratic President Barack Obama and one by Republican President Donald Trump — found that the states were not at risk of immediate harm because compliance deadlines do not take effect until 2030 or 2032.The EPA projects the rule would yield up to $370 billion in climate and health net benefits and avoid nearly 1.4 billion metric tons of carbon pollution through 2047, equivalent to preventing annual emissions of 328 million gasoline-powered cars.