On October 16, 2024, the Supreme Court upheld a Biden administration rule aimed at reducing pollution from coal-fired power plants, allowing new regulations to remain in effect despite ongoing legal challenges.

The request to halt the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rule came from West Virginia, Indiana, and 25 other primarily Republican-led states, along with power companies and industry associations.

The regulation mandates that coal-fired power plants must capture 90% of their carbon emissions or shut down within eight years, with compliance deadlines starting in June 2025.

The EPA estimates that the new rule could generate up to $370 billion in climate and public health benefits over the next 20 years, preventing nearly 1.4 billion metric tons of carbon pollution by 2047.

Environmental advocates welcomed the court's decision, emphasizing the urgent need for regulations due to worsening climate-related disasters and supporting the EPA's measures as essential to combat climate change.

Challengers argue that the EPA's rules may force power plants to close, citing reliance on unproven technologies and unrealistic timelines, while also claiming the regulation mirrors a previous one that was struck down.

Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar emphasized that the rules allow states until 2032 to comply, and that carbon capture technology could significantly reduce emissions.

Critics, including Virginia's Attorney General, have labeled the regulations as overly burdensome and detrimental to energy production and economic stability.

This decision is part of broader efforts to combat climate change and promote cleaner energy sources in the United States, marking a departure from recent Supreme Court rulings that have limited the EPA's regulatory authority.

The ruling follows a series of recent favorable decisions for the EPA, including earlier approvals of rules to cut methane and mercury emissions.

The rule includes requirements for carbon capture and storage technology, which the EPA claims is proven and feasible, while opponents argue it lacks effectiveness at the proposed scale.

The Biden administration claims the plan is designed to avoid economic harm while protecting communities from pollution and addressing climate change.