The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear a lawsuit from Republican-led states challenging the Biden administration’s attempt to assign a social cost to carbon—a foundational element to all life.
Last year, the Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit affirmed a federal district court’s decision to dismiss the lawsuit. The eighth circuit ruled that the states lacked standing to challenge the estimates and indicated they could sue if it identified a concrete injury.
“We will continue to combat government overreach at every turn,” Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey’s office told The Epoch Times in a statement.
After taking office in 2021, President Joe Biden signed an executive order establishing the “Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases,” which included, among others, leadership from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and Council of Economic Advisors.
“An accurate social cost is essential for agencies to accurately determine the social benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions when conducting cost-benefit analyses of regulatory and other actions,” the order read.
OMB did not immediately respond to The Epoch Times’s request for comment but similarly defended the estimates when the Supreme Court rejected a prior challenge from Louisiana.
The red states in Missouri v. Biden and Louisiana’s case both argued that the impacts of the costs will potentially be widespread, affecting every sector of the American economy.
Their petition notes that the executive order said agencies “shall“ use the interim costs ”when monetizing the value of changes in greenhouse gas emissions resulting from regulations and other relevant agency actions until final values are published.”
Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar responded to the states’ petition with a brief in which she cautioned that agencies aren’t required to adopt the cost estimate. She also backed the eighth circuit in criticizing the states’ claim to standing in the case.
“It is conjecture whether a particular federal agency will ultimately use the interim estimates as a basis for a particular rule that results in a cognizable injury to petitioners,” she said. “The agency could choose not to regulate at all. If it decides to regulate, it could conclude that the applicable statute requires it to regulate without regard to effects on greenhouse gases.”
It seems likely that future regulations utilizing the social cost estimate would prompt additional lawsuits.
“Litigation on the social cost of carbon is likely to move to challenging the regulations issued which are justified by the social cost of carbon values,” David Watkins, an attorney with the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said in a statement provided to The Epoch Times. “The same problems with the social cost of carbon numbers exist regardless of where they are used.”
