Republican attorneys general from 27 U.S. states, along with industry trade groups, have launched legal challenges against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in response to a newly finalized rule aimed at curbing carbon emissions from coal-fired and natural gas power plants. The lawsuits, filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, are part of a broader pushback against President Joe Biden’s administration’s climate change agenda.

The contentious rule, finalized recently by the Biden administration, mandates substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from both existing coal-fired plants and new natural gas facilities. Specifically, the rule requires a 90% reduction in emissions by 2032, which would necessitate significant investments in emissions control technologies within the U.S. power industry.

West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, leading the charge with Indiana and other states, argues that the EPA’s rule oversteps its authority under the Clean Air Act. Morrisey contends that the mandated emissions reduction technologies are not sufficiently proven or deployable at scale, potentially jeopardizing the stability of the nation’s energy grid.

Similarly, the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA), representing nearly 900 local electric cooperatives, decries the rule as “unlawful, unreasonable, and unachievable.” The association asserts that compliance with the stringent emissions targets would be economically burdensome and technically infeasible for many power providers.

The legal challenges coincide with a separate lawsuit filed by 23 Republican attorneys general targeting another EPA rule restricting emissions of mercury and other hazardous pollutants from power plants. The opposition’s central argument questions the feasibility and readiness of technologies like carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), proposed by the EPA to achieve the emissions reductions mandated by the rule.

Critics argue that while the EPA touts CCS as a viable solution, the technology remains largely untested and underutilized within the power generation sector. They cite limited deployment globally, particularly in coal-fired plants, as evidence of the impracticality of the EPA’s approach.

Conversely, proponents of the EPA’s rule emphasize the necessity of advancing technologies like CCS to meet ambitious environmental goals. They contend that significant funding allocations, such as those outlined in the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, will drive innovation and make CCS more economically feasible over time.

The legal battle underscores broader ideological and policy clashes surrounding climate change and regulatory authority. The Biden administration’s efforts to aggressively address greenhouse gas emissions have faced staunch resistance from Republican-led states and industry stakeholders concerned about the economic impact and regulatory overreach.

The outcome of these lawsuits will likely have profound implications for the trajectory of U.S. climate policy, particularly in the energy sector. Legal experts anticipate that the feasibility and readiness of emissions reduction technologies like CCS will be a focal point in the litigation, with potential ramifications for the interpretation of the Clean Air Act and EPA’s regulatory authority.

As the legal proceedings unfold, stakeholders across the energy landscape are closely watching developments that could reshape the future of environmental regulations and the nation’s approach to combating climate change. The lawsuits represent a pivotal moment in the ongoing debate over the balance between environmental protection and economic considerations within the U.S. regulatory framework.