Supreme Court Decision Limits EPA’s Power to Reach Climate Change Goals

On Thursday, June 30th, the Supreme Court of the United States made a major decision on the West Virginia vs. EPA case, striking down the Agency’s Clean Power Plan and dealing a blow to its regulatory authority. What exactly was in this plan, and what does this decision mean for the future of the Environmental Protection Agency, the nation’s top environmental agency? 

What was the decision? 

Simply, the court decided in a 6-3 decision that the EPA cannot force electric utilities to shut down plants that are powered by coal and make them switch to renewable resources. This was originally part of the Clean Power Plan, which sought to limit carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants by having some of them move to alternative energy sources like wind or solar.  

The Court argued that because the EPA was created in response to the passage of the Clean Air Act in 1970, the Agency cannot wield its power to address modern-day issues because today’s climate concerns did not exist at the time of the EPA’s inception. 

This interpretation of the original mission of the EPA is unusual. The Clean Air Act tasks the Agency with coming up with “the best system of emission reduction,” which in this case would clearly fall within the purview of the EPA.  

What is important here is that the court is saying that Congress did not clearly and specifically lay out what the EPA can do about emissions when the Agency was originally formed in the 70s. The majority opinion from Chief Justice John Roberts argues that Congress could not have assigned the ability to make such decisions to the EPA during its formation. Further, the court holds that only Congress can authorize the actions to direct the EPA to take action.  

This is confusing to some experts because while the text of the Clean Air Act may not explicitly grant the EPA these powers (because climate change was not fully understood at the time), the Agency is supposedly unable to evolve with the times.  

What does this mean for the future of the EPA? 

This decision serves as a check on the EPA’s authority, possibly bringing into question other regulatory power that the Agency may hold. The EPA has signaled that it has explored other avenues of enforcing emissions reductions, including plans to address the smog that crosses state lines and to encourage coal plants to reduce the quantity of polluting equipment that they use. It is important to note that the decision does not completely eliminate responsibilities assigned to the EPA as set out by the original Clean Air Act. 

Instead of making the kind of massive, reformative policy changes that are needed to address climate change, the EPA will now have to act in a more focused and narrow manner. 

Additionally, the decision could embolden energy corporations (or any company, for that matter) to contest other regulations that threaten their profits. The coal mining industry was heavily on the side of West Virginia in this case, as the policy would have eliminated a significant amount of high-polluting coal from circulation, thus inhibiting profit. 

Beyond the EPA, the worry is that the Supreme Court has now set a precedent in which decisions can be made on the power of other government agencies that go beyond the exact language of how they were established. For example, during the pandemic, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention stepped in and implemented a sweeping policy that included economic assistance, yet the CDC is not explicitly tasked with economic issues. Thus, under this ruling, one could technically argue that the CDC does not carry authority in this instance. Possible targets for this kind of decision making include OSHA, Immigration, and other agencies that use their expertise to address issues that often fall outside of their original scope. 

The decision made yesterday does not gut the EPA as we know it. Given the ruling, Congress could pass new laws that expand the scope of the EPA’s work, circumventing this ruling. It does, however, prevent the EPA—the only Agency in the US tasked with fully addressing environmental issues—from taking autonomous action. The US emits around 11% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, which is considered a massive contribution. The nation will need to act quickly to curb these emissions as the world rapidly approaches its global temperature limits.