EPA Administrator Regan Issues Statement on West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency. Today, in response to the Supreme Court ruling in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Administrator Michael S. Regan issued the following statement:
“As a public health agency, EPA’s number one responsibility is to protect people’s health, especially those who are on the front lines of environmental pollution. Make no mistake: we will never waver from that responsibility.
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. A deeply divided US Supreme Court dealt a major blow to President
The 6-3 ruling
interpreting the US Clean Air Act will keep the administration from
imposing the type of wide-ranging emissions-cutting plan the EPA tried
to put in place when
The majority said that, while
the EPA can regulate power plant emissions, the agency can’t try to
shift power generation away from fossil-fuel plants to cleaner sources,
as Obama’s Clean Power Plan sought to do. Writing for the court, Chief
Justice
“A decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself, or an agency acting pursuant to a clear delegation from that representative body,” Roberts wrote.
The court’s three Democratic-appointed justices --
“The court appoints itself -- instead of Congress or the expert agency -- the decisionmaker on climate policy,” Kagan wrote for the three dissenters. “I cannot think of many things more frightening.”
The ruling casts fresh doubt on Biden’s pledge to reduce US emissions in half by the end of the decade and his goal of a carbon-free electric grid by 2035. Hitting those targets will be impossible without regulations to stifle greenhouse gases from oil wells, automobiles and power plants, as well as tax incentives designed to spur clean energy, according to several analyses.
Biden said in a statement the ruling is “another devastating decision that aims to take our country backwards” and “risks damaging our nation’s ability to keep our air clean and combat climate change.”
He vowed to work with the EPA and other affected agencies to review the opinion and find ways to legally continue protecting people from pollution and tackle the climate crisis. He also said the administration would work with states and cities and push for congressional action.
“The Supreme Court’s decision does not mean the end of President Biden’s climate agenda, but the administration will now have to quickly assess which regulatory actions it can still move forward on and which actions it must rethink or abandon,” said Kevin Minoli, formerly a senior official in the EPA’s Office of General Counsel.
Key Doctrine
Roberts pointed to the so-called major questions doctrine, saying “we presume that Congress intends to make major policy decisions itself, not leave those decisions to agencies.”
The court’s reasoning could spur challenges to other federal regulations, from EPA automobile emissions curbs to vaccine mandates from the Centers for Disease Control, particularly when issues of congressional authorization are involved.
“The
big thing that this case makes clear is that there is now this major
questions doctrine that agencies will have to grapple with,” said
Under the Clean Power Plan, states were encouraged to shift electricity generation from higher-emitting sources, such as coal, and toward lower-emitting options, such as renewable power. The Clean Power Plan never took effect, and when Donald Trump became president, the EPA rescinded the rule and adopted a narrower approach.
The Supreme Court case grew out of a group of legal challenges to the Trump rule. A federal appeals court in Washington said the Trump plan was based on an overly restrictive read of the EPA’s authority.
That prompted backers of the Trump rule -- companies including Westmoreland Mining Holdings, and 19 Republican-led states led by West Virginia -- to turn to the nation’s highest court. Their appeal said the lower court ruling would let the EPA remake the US electric system, going well beyond what Congress intended when it enacted the Clean Air Act in 1970.
The Biden administration said the text of the Clean Air Act doesn’t preclude efforts to shift power generation to cleaner sources. The White House drew support in the case from a mix of industries, including technology companies and electric utilities, as well as environmental organizations.
The case centered on a Clean Air Act provision that requires the EPA to identify the “best system of emission reduction” for existing pollution sources and then tasks states to come up with implementation plans.
The cases are West Virginia v. EPA, 20-1530; North American Coal Co. v. EPA, 20-1531; Westmoreland Mining Holdings v. EPA, 20-1778; and North Dakota v. EPA, 20-1780.
(Updates with Biden statement starting in eighth paragraph.)
--With assistance from
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.
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 wellbeing, 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.”
