Climate activists, lawyers, and investors had to react to Thursday’s Supreme Court decision in West Virginia v. EPA. This case ended the power of the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate carbon pollution under Clean Air Act.
Many people said that they were devastated by the Supreme Court’s decision. Some feared that the court would strike a harder blow to Clean Air Act, but they believe the court’s decision just shifts the venue in the fight for climate change.
Climate lawyers claimed that the ruling was more narrow than they had feared. They also said it opened up legal options for federal agencies to regulate carbon emissions using other parts.
“EPA still has the tools to work with. Jack Lienke (a policy advisor at NYU law), stated that EPA will continue to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power stations. It’s frustrating, but it’s not over.
This ruling will almost certainly make it more difficult for the United States to achieve their climate goals. It will also shift climate attention away from the states, local governments, and investors who are trying to take advantage of the declining costs of clean energy. They argued that while the credibility of the federal government could be affected in international climate negotiations, momentum towards low-carbon power may not depend on federal regulation.
Casey Katims (executive director of the U.S.) stated that “our governors are fired-up.” Climate Alliance is a bipartisan coalition made up of leaders from all states who are committed to reducing emissions.
Katims pointed out that, in the time it took the EPA regulation reach the country’s highest courts, dozens have passed landmark clean-energy bills.
The Supreme Court’s decision focused on the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan. It was also about whether the Clean Air Act gave the EPA the authority to require utilities to shift away from coal-fired power stations and to generate power using wind, solar, and other cleaner energy sources.
Although the court ruled that the EPA cannot require such a shift, it allowed the EPA to use other options to regulate power plants in accordance with the Clean Air Act.
Lienke stated that the agency would eventually propose a new regulation. This could force coal plants to adopt carbon-sequestration technology, cofire with natural gas, or increase efficiency. All of these actions would reduce emissions. We will continue to fight over these options.”
The court’s majority relied on new legal reasoning to reach its decision. Environmental lawyers are concerned that this has opened up new avenues for federal agencies to limit their administrative power.
Jason Rylander, a senior lawyer at the Center for Biological Diversity said that the way the document is written and the invocations of the major questions doctrine cast a shadow over the law governing environmental, public health, and safety. He added that decisions like these have a chilling impact on agencies like EPA when they attempt to enact policies and rules. The Major Questions Doctrine focuses on the authority that regulatory agencies have.
Rylander is concerned that the new doctrine might temper EPA’s ambitions, when “it’s no time to be timid about taking action on climate change.”
There are fewer options at federal level, and there is uncertainty about how Supreme Court will be regulated. Some states and local governments will try to fill the gap on climate.
Katims stated that the state’s authority to reduce greenhouse gas emissions has not been diminished. He also said that his organization would work to get more states to adopt measures such as renewable energy standards, zero-carbon electricity goals, and carbon markets to limit power plant emissions.
Kate Wright, executive director of Climate Mayors (a bipartisan group that includes nearly 500 mayors from 48 states), said some of this work is already being done at the city level. Los Angeles is closing its fossil fuel and coal power plants and Houston is supplying clean energy to municipal facilities to address the climate crisis.
Wright stated that funding and jurisdiction can limit many of these efforts. This is a major blow to climate action at the federal level because of the Supreme Court’s decision.
She stated that “we can’t just print money.” “We will need the regulatory power from the federal government. We will need technical assistance and funding.
Al Gore, former Vice President of the United States, said that the U.S. must explore other options for combating global warming.
Gore stated in a statement that “We need to see state, local governments redouble our efforts to reduce emission, we need to watch the private sector step up to match their climate promises with action and, most importantly, we must ask Congress to adopt comprehensive climate legislation.”
Galvanize Climate Solutions co-executive chairman and former presidential candidate Tom Steyer said that the ruling “puts more onus” on investors and private businesses to finance projects that deliver large amounts of renewable energy.
Steyer stated that “we’re really on time” and added that solar and wind are the most affordable forms of electricity generation. “Investing in new technology is not the goal for the next 10 years. It’s all about improving and deploying the technology we already have.
Wright of Climate Mayors said that the Supreme’s Court decision will likely put the Biden administration’s 2030 climate goals even further off track.
The landmark Paris Agreement is a global agreement that reduces greenhouse gas emissions. It was signed by the United States. This pledged to cut down its emissions by half by 2030. Wright stated that the target could be at risk if there is not aggressive climate action by cities, states, and the federal government.
The ruling by the court could also affect America’s credibility during global climate negotiations, particularly with countries that have stronger climate regulations like the European Union.
Steyer stated that it makes it harder for the United States, the federal executive branch, to lead internationally on climate if they can’t fulfill their climate promise by 2030.
Vickie Patton was the general counsel of the Environmental Defense Fund. She was a party in the case. Although the Supreme Court’s decision was considered “damaging”, she said that there are still ways for the EPA to reduce harmful pollution. These include addressing methane from the oil and gas industries and tailpipe emissions from passenger cars, trucks, and buses. She said that such tools would become more important.
Patton stated that, while the Supreme Court’s decision could have alarming consequences, it shouldn’t be cause to despair.
