In the case of West Virginia vs Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the US Supreme Court ruled, according to the Wall Street Journal, that "federal regulators exceeded their authority in seeking to limit emissions from coal plants in a decision that sharply curtails the executive branch’s authority to make policy actions on a range of issues without congressional direction." The 6-3 decision noted that the EPA had overstepped its authority with its Clean Power Plan, an Obama-era program that the state of West Virginia challenged.
As might be expected, opinions are many and varied as to what this decision means to the workplace as well as the environment. Here's a sample:
Jay Timmons, CEO of the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), issued this statement in support of the ruling.
Manufacturers share a deep commitment to protecting our planet and our people, and manufacturing innovation holds the key to solving the generational challenge of climate change. The court’s decision affirms the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to issue appropriate greenhouse gas regulations while providing a reminder that the agency must stay within the guardrails delegated by Congress. As some of the largest electricity consumers and as electricity generators, manufacturers are ready to work with the EPA to deliver innovative and balanced solutions that protect our environment and our competitiveness as it considers next steps.”
Earlier last with the industry trade group, along with 41 state partners sent President Biden a letter highlighting the importance of affordable, reliable electricity for manufacturers to remain competitive. “It signals manufacturers’ eagerness to work with policymakers on the important decisions and planning surrounding the future of the electrical grid and broader energy policy,” NAM said.
Chris Carr, chair of the Environment and Energy Practice at law firm Paul Hastings, notes that the ruling dealt a major setback to the EPA's efforts to reduce greenhouse gases in the United States. He says that the decision:
- Signals to climate-leading states, like California, that they need to do all that they can to continue to lead;
- Doesn't formally shut the door to EPA fostering the energy transformation via the Clean Air Act, as the decision was limited to what the Act's Section 111(d) does not authorize;
- Is limited to holding that Section 111(d) does not authorize the Clean Power Plan's "generation shifting" approach, and doesn't address whether EPA only has the authority to adopt measures "inside the fence" (i.e., at the individual source level);
- Solidifies the "major questions doctrine" as a doctrine separate from a mere canon of statutory interpretation or interpretative principle;
- Has significant implications for administrative agencies beyond the EPA, as we saw earlier this year in the OSHA Covid case, National Federation of Independent Business v. OSHA.
And Maya K. van Rossum, the founder of the Green Amendments For The Generations, a national nonprofit dedicated to the passage of Green Amendments in every state, laid out her objections in a statement critical of the decision. "The US Supreme Court is taking and undermining critical protections for all corners of our society – from women’s rights to protections from gun violence to the devastating consequences of environmental pollution and degradation. Until the dynamics of the court change, we are sure to be in for more devastating losses when it comes to fundamental freedoms and inalienable rights. But there are steps that can be taken. Sometimes more laws will help. But when it comes to the environment, we have plenty of laws, what we need now are state-level Green Amendments, with one ultimately passed at the federal level when the seeds for success have been sown."