Cap and Trade for Carbon reduction is a “government taking”.
Congress must decide on the proper valuation.
This has been the Oil&Gas industry position for decades.
The SC does mention "cap and trade" in this decision (breaks added for easier reading). (Page 29 of the decision - page 35 of the pdf).
"But just because a cap-and-trade “system” can be used to reduce emissions does not mean that it is the kind of “system of emission reduction” referred to in Section 111. Indeed, the Government’s examples demonstrate why it is not.
First, unlike Section 111, the Acid Rain and NAAQS programs contemplate trading systems as a means of complying with an already established emissions limit, set either directly by Congress (as with Acid Rain, see 42 U. S. C. §7651c) or by reference to the safe concentration of the pollutant in the ambient air (as with the NAAQS).
In Section 111, by contrast, it is EPA’s job to come up with the cap itself: the “numerical limit on emissions” that States must apply to each source. 80 Fed. Reg. 64768.
We doubt that Congress directed the Agency to set an emissions cap at the level “which reflects the degree of emission limitation achievable through the application of [a cap-and-trade] system,” §7411(a)(1), for that degree is indeterminate.
It is one thing for Congress to authorize regulated sources to use trading to comply with a preset cap, or a cap that must be based on some scientific, objective criterion, such as the NAAQS.
It is quite another to simply authorize EPA to set the cap itself wherever the Agency sees fit.