Utility companies argue on behalf of EPA’s greenhouse gas emissions regulation authority before SCOTUS
A coalition of nine power companies has joined a U.S. Supreme Court Case on the side of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), arguing in favor of the agency’s authority to regulate the greenhouse gas emissions pouring from power plants.
The nine partners include Exelon Corporation, Consolidated Edison, Inc., Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, National Grid USA, New York Power Authority, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Puget Sound Energy, Inc., Sacramento Municipal Utility District, and Seattle City Light. In the case of West Virginia vs. EPA, they sided with the EPA, several states, and NGOs in seeking affirmation of a lower court’s ruling on American Lung Association v. EPA.
At stake is the scope of the EPA’s authority as granted by the Clean Air Act to regulate power plant greenhouse gas emissions. The coalition of utilities argued that this ability is key to the power sector’s shift toward cleaner sources of electricity generation. Collectively, the companies own or operate gnarly 75,000 MW of electric generation capacity from a mix of fossil and renewable fuels, including coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear, wind, solar, hydropower, geothermal, and biofuel resources.
“We have made significant progress in our commitment to transforming the grid into a cleaner, more reliable, and resilient energy system that meets the increasing electrification needs of our customers and communities,” Calvin Butler, Exelon COO and senior executive vice president, said. “As the climate crisis deepens, and as Exelon and its peer U.S. utility companies work toward ambitious clean energy goals aligned with stakeholder expectations, the EPA’s ability to establish a framework for sustained growth of low- and zero-carbon sources of generation will only become more important.”
Over the next four years, Exelon alone intends to invest more than $25 billion into the electric grid, focused on making a cleaner grid. This money would go toward transmission upgrades supporting state and customer renewable energy and electrification goals, electric vehicle infrastructure, and the capacity and IT projects needed to support wider-scale distributed energy efforts.
One of the key points the defendants in the case argue, on behalf of the EPA, is that those pursuing the case and limitation of EPA’s power are based on actions the EPA might take in the future and not on anything it has done.
