Lawmakers, industry groups react to Supreme Courtʻs EPA ruling
In the case of West Virginia vs. the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Supreme Court voted 6-3 to constrict the authority of the EPA to mandate carbon emissions.
Specifically, the conservative majority said it was beyond the authority of the EPA to say that power generation should be shifted from one source, like coal or oil, to another source, like solar or wind. The Court stated that such a mandate should only come from Congress. The ruling has received some support as well as backlash.
U.S. Rep Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ), chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said the ruling undermines the Clean Air Act and subverts decades of established law.
“Today’s decision makes a mockery of the clear separation of powers outlined in our Constitution and subverts decades of settled law. The Clean Air Act is emphatically clear that EPA has both the authority and the obligation to protect public health and regulate dangerous air pollution like greenhouse gases. The Supreme Court’s blatant dismissal of the will of Congress is an alarming display of hubris, the consequences of which will be felt far beyond this case,” Pallone said. “There is no doubt that this decision is the result of years of coordinated, calculated efforts by Republicans and polluting special interests to undermine Americans’ right to clean, safe air. No one is safer or freer for this decision. All the Court has achieved today is putting Americans in the crosshairs of dangerous air pollution and a growing climate crisis which threatens us all.”
U.S. Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee, supported the majority opinion.
“Today’s decision by the Supreme Court is welcome news and further proves that EPA overstepped its authority by imposing enormously burdensome regulations on states to reconfigure our electric grid despite Congress’s rejection. I congratulate Attorney General Morrisey for his leadership on this important victory for West Virginia and the entire nation, which ensures that EPA can never issue an overreaching regulation like the Clean Power Plan again. EPA must follow the law, and as Ranking Member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I will continue to conduct oversight of EPA to make sure the agency does not attempt to devastate the people and industries of West Virginia as it did with the Clean Power Plan ever again,” Capito said.
Emily Fisher, general counsel and senior vice president of clean energy at the Edison Electric Institute (EEI), noted that the Supreme Court did not strip the EPA of its authority to regulate emissions, which the case was fully seeking.
“America’s electric companies are committed to getting the energy they provide as clean as they can as fast as they can, without compromising on the reliability and affordability that customers value,” Fisher said. “While we still are evaluating the implications of the Supreme Court’s ruling, EEI and our member companies remain committed to working with Administrator Michael Regan and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as they undertake a new rulemaking that is consistent with the court’s decision.”
Heather Zichal, CEO of the American Clean Power Association (ACP), is “deeply disappointed” in the decision.
“At a time when we can least afford it, this decision constrains EPA’s ability to put meaningful limits on carbon from power plants—the nation’s largest industrial source of such pollution. In passing the Clean Air Act with overwhelming bipartisan support, Congress established a national program intended to curb pollution and protect human health and welfare. The Court’s decision turns the clock backwards by curtailing EPA’s ability to do that job,” Zichal said.
She called for swift congressional action to pass the climate provisions in the reconciliation package. Abigail Ross Hopper, president and CEO of the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA), concurred.
“The federal government has both the authority and responsibility to protect Americans from the detrimental effects of pollution, and regulating the actions of fossil-polluting sources is a necessary next step in the fight against climate change,” Hopper said. “The power to reduce greenhouse gas emissions rests with Congress, and it is more urgent than ever that Congress take swift action to codify climate protecting policies that will also advance America’s clean energy deployment at a more rapid pace.”
In addition to delivering a blow in the fight against climate change, Robert Weissman, president of Public Citizen, said the decision defines a ‘major questions doctrine’ that has not previously been part of statutory interpretation.
“While there are good reasons to fear that industry will try to use this doctrine to undermine agencies’ ability to adopt strong public health, safety, consumer, and environmental protections, the court specifies that it is only to be applied in ‘extraordinary cases,’” Weissman said. ”Of course, regulatory agencies always should ensure that their actions are rooted in statutory authority, but they should not in any way be deterred from doing their job because of this decision. And courts should take care not to misconstrue this doctrine to block regulatory action.”
However, the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA) applauded the ruling.
“Today’s ruling clearly acknowledges that EPA overstepped its regulatory authority in the Clean Power Plan. The Court’s decision resets the agency to its appropriate regulatory path, requiring it to set achievable emissions guidelines that can be accomplished at existing power plants while also allowing states to consider local factors and have the final say on compliance options,” NRECA CEO Jim Matheson said.
