On June 30, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Michael Regan issued a statement noting his disappointment in the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on West Virginia v. EPA and the EPA’s continued effort to regulate the economy to reduce carbon emissions.
According to CNBC, the Supreme Court issued a decision on June 30 determining that the EPA did not have the authority to set carbon emissions standards for existing U.S. power plants. The court noted that Congress is the only legislative or administrative body with the jurisdiction to create cap-and-trade regulations to curtail emissions and promote the use of renewable energy sources. West Virginia v. EPA was decided in a 6-3 ruling.
“At this moment, when the impacts of the climate crisis are becoming ever more disruptive, costing billions of dollars every year from floods, wildfires, droughts and sea level rise, and jeopardizing the safety of millions of Americans, the Court’s ruling is disheartening,” Regan said, according to the EPA website. “Ambitious climate action presents a singular opportunity to ensure U.S. global competitiveness, create jobs, lower costs for families and protect people’s health and well-being, especially those who’ve long suffered the burden of inaction. EPA will move forward with lawfully setting and implementing environmental standards that meet our obligation to protect all people and all communities from environmental harm.
“While I am deeply disappointed by the Supreme Court’s decision, we are committed to using the full scope of EPA’s authorities to protect communities and reduce the pollution that is driving climate change. We will move forward to provide certainty and transparency for the energy sector, which will support the industry’s ongoing efforts to grow our clean-energy economy.”
The Associated Press reports that the Court’s decision in WV v. EPA is consistent with the “conservative majority’s skepticism of the power of regulatory agencies.” The decision to maintain Congress’ regulatory authority on environmental issues reflects the majority’s underlying originalist tendency to keep legislative powers within the legislative branch of the federal government.
Chief Justice Roberts wrote in the majority opinion: “Capping carbon dioxide emissions at a level that will force a nationwide transition away from the use of coal to generate electricity may be a sensible ‘solution to the crisis of the day,’” but “a decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself, or an agency acting pursuant to a clear delegation from that representative body.”
According to The Heritage Foundation, the specific issue at hand in West Virginia v. EPA was the “Clean Power Plan,” an EPA policy that purportedly had the authority to cap carbon emissions across the “entire electricity sector.” CPP regulation attempted to incentivize the shift to renewables and make it far more economically difficult to run coal- and gas-based power plants. Heritage noted that roughly 60% of American power comes from gas- and coal-based power plants.
"In other words, the EPA put itself squarely in a position to set energy and economic policy under the guise of environmental policy while enjoying nearly unfettered power to do so,” Katie Tubb wrote on the Heritage Foundation website.
Unfortunately, this attempt from the EPA ignored other key energy considerations — such as consumer choice, reliability and affordability — compromising the overall quality of U.S. energy production.
In a recent June 30 Tweet, Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt said, "Big Victory! Today, SCOTUS ruled in our favor in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, a critically important case that we joined West Virginia in filing that pushes back on the Biden EPA’s job-killing regulations."
