‘Major step backward’: Pa. groups react to Supreme Court decision limiting EPA’s ability to tackle greenhouse gas emissions

Environmental groups and attorneys from the Philadelphia region reacted strongly and swiftly to Thursday’s U.S. Supreme Court decision siding with coal companies that will limit how the federal Environmental Protection Agency can regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants in an effort to curb climate change.

The Clean Power PA Coalition, a group that advocates for clean energy, called the decision a “major step backward” that “favors the narrow special interest of corporate polluters.”

“It’s an outrageous position,” said Joseph Minott, executive director of the Philadelphia-based Clean Air Council and an attorney. “And I think it’s totally political.”

Minott said the EPA would still retain authority to regulate polluting emissions from power plants and other sources under the Clean Air Act. But the decision would limit how the EPA can determine the “best system of emission reduction.” The court determined that Congress did not empower EPA to rely on a “generation shifting” approach to reduce carbon pollution.

In practice, Minott said, the ruling will have the effect of limiting the EPA to adopting regulations that apply only “inside the fenceline,” as well as the breadth of agency’s authority.

America’s Power, a coal-industry trade organization, however, hailed the court’s decision that the “EPA does not have unlimited authority to do anything it wants to do.”

» READ MORE: Supreme Court limits the EPA in curbing power plant emissions

The ruling, because it applied to only a federal agency, does not appear to hamper the ability of states such as Pennsylvania, where coal is still a regular source of energy, to set their own plans to curb carbon dioxide or methane emissions.

“Today’s ruling undercuts good-faith efforts to fight climate change and protect clean air, but that does not mean we will stop fighting,” said Ramez Ziadeh, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection’s acting secretary. “Pennsylvanians strongly favor strong protections for the air we all breathe, the water we drink, and the land we live, work, and play on.”

The commonwealth, under Gov. Tom Wolf, officially joined the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) this year in an effort to curb carbon dioxide emissions, which contribute to climate change. Pennsylvania’s membership, however, is tied up in a court challenge backed by Republican legislators.

RGGI is an agreement by 11 states, including neighboring New York, New Jersey, and Delaware, to limit emissions from fossil fuel-fired power plants. Under RGGI, participating states establish a regional cap on carbon dioxide emissions that slowly adjusts downward over time. Fossil-fuel companies buy allowances for carbon they emit through an auction.

The most recent auction in June generated $309.7 million that the participating states will use for various energy efficiency, renewable energy, and utility bill assistance programs.

The Wolf administration says that RGGI will reduce 225 million tons of carbon pollution from power plants by 2030.

Advocates and experts were still scrambling Thursday afternoon to digest the sweeping implications of the Supreme Court’s ruling in West Virginia v. EPA, wondering whether it would embolden polluters, and other industries, to make similar claims under what’s known as the “major questions doctrine,” which refers to a federal agency making rules that have major economic or political significance.

The court essentially said those major questions are up to Congress to rule on.

“For better or for worse, it certainly adds urgency and importance for the commonwealth to implement its own policies to tackle climate pollution at the local level, given it appears unlikely that Washington, D.C., will respond to this profound decision,” said David Masur, executive director of PennEnvironment, a nonprofit advocacy group.

Minott said that not only does Congress not have the scientific expertise to create pollution standards but members “can’t even agree if it’s Monday or Tuesday.”

Brendan Collins, an environmental attorney at Philadelphia-based Ballard Spahr with clients in the electric, oil and gas power sectors, agreed that the ruling “does not prohibit states from adopting programs that the EPA cannot adopt.”

Collins notes coal has been a dwindling power source in Pennsylvania in recent years because of economic factors, such as cheaper power provided by natural gas and competition from renewables. Pennsylvania has 11 coal-fired plants in operation, according to the federal Energy Information Administration.

However, multiple legal experts noted the decision could leave power generators dealing with 50 sets of pollution rules, rather than one, creating more confusion, not less. It could also trigger lawsuits, if states begin suing each other over emissions. Indeed, some power companies sided with the EPA in the case because of that and other implications, preferring to have a single set of rules.

“It’s important to remind your readers,” Collins said, “that by-and-large, it is not electric power generators that brought this case to the Supreme Court, it is political actors, acting for political purposes.”

Michelle Bloodworth, CEO of America’s Power, a coal industry trade organization, hailed the court’s decision, saying, “The issue is not whether EPA can regulate carbon dioxide emissions under ... the Clean Air Act, but rather what kind of standards the agency is allowed to set. We are pleased the court agreed with us that EPA does not have unlimited authority to do anything it wants to do.”

Bloodworth urged the EPA not to issue a new rule “that causes more premature coal retirements, especially as officials are warning about the prospect of electricity shortages that threaten grid reliability in many parts of the country.”

Supporters of the decision believe the media and environmentalists are overreacting.

Tyler Duvelius, a spokesman for the Conservative Energy Network, said that while the decision will restrict the EPA’s power, “it does not limit state or federal policymakers from passing legislation designed to reduce carbon emissions ... At the end of the day conservative leaders in states across the country — not federal regulators — must be the ones driving the conversations determining the best solutions to reducing emissions.”