|
Amy Coney Barrett on Energy & Oil
|
|
|
Declines to acknowledge well-established climate science
Barrett's judicial philosophy--shaped by her mentor, the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia--suggests that she could take a narrow view of EPA's climate authority under the Clean Air Act.Barrett declined to acknowledge well-established
climate science during her confirmation hearing last year. "I don't think I am competent to opine on what causes global warming or not,"
Barrett told members of the Senate Judiciary Committee (Climatewire, Oct. 15, 2020).
She later added: "I don't think that my views on global warming or climate change are relevant to the job I would do as a judge."
Source: GreenWire E&E News on 2021 EPA & climate SCOTUS cases
, Nov 3, 2021
No extensions for refineries' Renewable Fuel Program
On June 25, 2021, the Supreme Court decided HollyFrontier Cheyenne Refining v. Renewable Fuels Association, which concerned small refiners' eligibility for hardship exemptions under the federal renewable fuels standards ("RFS") program. Three small fuel
refineries had each applied for a hardship exemption under the RFS program, and the EPA had granted each request. A group of renewable fuel producers then challenged those exemptions. By a vote of six to three, the Court held that the text of the
statute does not require that the exemption be held continually in order to remain valid.Justice Amy Coney Barrett dissented in an opinion joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. The dissenting justices argued that, while the majority
attributed to Congress a meaning of "extension" that is "possible," it did not give the term its "ordinary meaning." In the view of the dissenters, the "ordinary meaning" of "extension" excludes a firm that has allowed its prior exemption to lapse.
Source: JD Supra on 2021 EPA & climate SCOTUS cases
, Jul 14, 2021
Page last updated: Mar 20, 2022