EPA limited by Supreme Court

On Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency has limited authority to regulate carbon dioxide from power plants. The ruling of West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, says the Clean Air Act does not give the EPA the broad authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. The federal EPA cannot force states to shift from coal to different sources of energy, the court ruled. "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,'" Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in his opinion. Still, the Clean Air Act doesn't give EPA the authority to do so and Congress must be more clear. "A decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself, or an agency acting pursuant to a clear delegation from that representative body," he wrote. Trish Demeter, interim executive director for the Ohio Environmental Council said the decision comes at a time when "we need all hands on deck to reduce harmful emissions and fight climate change." Demeter said the court's ruling endangers the health of residents and the planet. "The Supreme Court seems to have gone out of its way to issue a ruling on this case, slowing federal climate action and efforts to regulate egregious polluters. This flies in the face of the American people who are increasingly concerned about the environment and want to see our leaders take action on climate change," Demeter said. The Ohio Environmental Council is an environmental advocate for a healthier, more sustainable Ohio. "Today's decision rejects a well-established precedent that, for more than 50 years, has enabled the EPA to require pollution reductions in the interest of cleaner air and safer water," Demeter said. "As a result of today's decision, communities — especially communities of color historically overburdened by pollution — will be at a much greater risk of breathing dirtier air and suffering from the increased impacts of climate change." With the court's decision, the EPA can still write standards to require power plants to operate more cleanly but limits the agency's options. "This aggressive decision announced a broad and dangerous 'major questions' doctrine to overrule an EPA rule that never took effect," said Manish Bapna, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council. "As the nation's environmental guardian, the EPA must use every tool in the kit to protect millions of people in this country and around the world who are suffering from the heatwaves, floods, fires and storms made worse by climate pollution." The Natural Resources Defense Council is an international nonprofit environmental organization with more than 3 million members, working to protect the world's natural resources, public health and the environment. This ruling is more complicated in Ohio, some experts say. "In Ohio, state lawmakers have repeatedly stifled investment in clean, renewable energy and propped up corrupt, polluting fossil fuel industries by passing harmful legislation like House Bill 6 and Senate Bill 52," Demeter said. "Luckily, local leaders are stepping up across Ohio to act on climate by pursuing community choice aggregation, developing and updating climate action plans, and joining Power A Clean Future Ohio with a commitment to reduce carbon emissions in their community. We need action like this at all levels of government." Demeter said the U.S. EPA must put the strongest pollution controls possible in place and Congress should invest in climate and job legislation. "At the state and local levels, we urge Ohio leaders to use funding from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act to build infrastructure that will reduce carbon pollution and invest in Ohio's clean energy future," Demeter said. "The health of our communities and environment depend on it." EPA administrator Michael Regan said the agency will never waiver from protecting people's health, including those fighting environmental pollution, after the 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. "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. 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." Howard A. Learner, executive director of Environmental Law & Policy Center, said the decision comes when the public needs healthier air. "The Court's decision will likely provide another tool for polluters to delay and stall sensible EPA environmental and public health standards designed to protect healthy clean air and safe clean water for all," Learner said. "While the public is calling for necessary actions to deal with climate change realities, the Supreme Court is creating unnecessary barriers to governmental actions that are based on sound science and longstanding congressional statutes. States, as well as Congress, will need to step up and act more strongly to protect our environment and public health while the Supreme Court installs roadblocks to federal agency actions."