Supreme Court Limits EPA Authority to Regulate GHG Emissions

The U.S. Supreme Court recently issued a milestone decision in West Virginia v. EPA that limited the authority of EPA to regulate certain greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.  The Supreme Court ruled that EPA cannot require existing power plants to shift away from fossil fuels to lower-carbon sources of energy, such as nuclear, hydrogen and renewables.  The Supreme Court took issue primarily with EPA’s method to regulate GHG emissions, not its motive or authority to regulate GHG emissions.

In making its ruling in West Virginia v. EPA to overturn the federal appeals court, the Court relied on the “major questions doctrine” that requires explicit congressional authorization for action on issues of broad importance and societal impact. The constitutional question at stake is, in short, how much power and authority should be given to federal agencies as the executive branch of the government.

The Supreme Court stated that Congress did not specifically give EPA the authority to implement a rule that requires existing power plants to switch to a more sustainable source of energy to reduce GHG emissions. The decision constrains EPA’s ability to issue any regulation that requires a national shift in energy policy to net-zero carbon or renewable energy sources to reduce GHG emissions for the power sector. 

The decision signals that the Supreme Court could be a major obstacle to federal agencies seeking to implement broad policies of national importance, such as rules for healthcare, workplace safety, finance, banking, telecommunications, or environmental justice.  In such areas, Congress may need to provide explicit authority for federal agencies to issue regulations. 

Despite limits on EPA’s authority, the agency can still set specific GHG emission limits for power plants based on existing emission control technologies.  The agency could also shift its focus to include new GHG emission limits for other industrial sources.  

If you have any questions or would like more information on how this decision could impact the surface finishing industry, please contact Jeff Hannapel of Christian Richter with NASF at jhannapel@thepolicygroup.com or crichter@thepolicygroup.com. 

This update is courtesy of the National Association for Surface Finishing (NASF). For more information or to become a member, visit nasf.org.