This morning, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of a narrow reading of the Clean Air Act, limiting the EPA’s authority to regulate Greenhouse-gas emissions. The court answered no to the question of “whether the ‘best system of emission reduction’ identified by EPA in the Clean Power Plan was within the authority granted to the Agency in Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act.” Although capping carbon dioxide emissions at a level that forces a national transition away from coal “may be a sensible solution to the crisis of the day,” is it not plausible, as SCOTUS notes, that Congress gave EPA the authority to adopt on its own such a regulatory scheme in Section 111(d).
The statement below can be attributed to me, Craig Stevens, spokesman for the GAIN coalition:
“The GAIN coalition applauds the Supreme Court’s decision to narrow the reading of the Clean Air Act when it comes to the EPA’s authority to adopt regulations under Section 111(d). Decisions and rules like this should move through the legislative process and not be subject to the political winds or bureaucratic whims of the unelected. Energy companies need regulatory certainty that should come from Congress, which will allow them to make the commercial investments necessary to help the U.S. pursue energy independence.”