Supporter,

This is the most environmentally devastating Supreme Court decision in decades, and a major blow to the fight against climate change in Pennsylvania and across the country. We are grateful to Clean Air Council members who started monthly donations to support state-level climate work because of the Supreme Court's recent decision. 

Can you donate MONTHLY to fight climate pollution and protect families from harmful emissions? Your monthly gifts are what powers our local campaigns for climate action. Even a $10 monthly gift is helpful.

A fired-up Council donor has agreed to match your gift 1-1 the first $2,000! (and there is still $1,000 in matches left!)

Having trouble viewing this email? View it in your web browser

Friend,

The U.S. Supreme Court issued another stunning, radical decision today in a case called West Virginia vs. EPA, which focused on the nature and contours of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) power under the Clean Air Act to regulate carbon emissions from power plants. 

The Supreme Court’s conservative majority just ruled in a 6-3 vote to limit the EPA’s ability to regulate climate pollution. The case concerns the non-existent 2015 Obama-era regulation, the “Clean Power Plan,” and its successor, the Trump-era “Affordable Clean Energy” rule, which an appeals court struck down as unlawful in January 2021. The Supreme Court case is highly unusual in that the court ruled on an EPA regulation that never went into effect and no longer exists, offering an impermissible advisory opinion that strips away a key tool of EPA authority under the Clean Air Act to establish the “best system of emission reduction” for regulated sources. 

While the ruling is limited to an interpretation of EPA’s power under section 111 of the Clean Air Act, and EPA still can - and must - control greenhouse gas pollution, this case has always been about siding with the fossil fuel industry and unnecessarily tying EPA’s hands. This ruling is part of a multi-decade campaign by pro-fossil fuel Attorneys General to block the government from meaningfully addressing climate change.

Clean Air Council intervened as a party in this case (represented by Clean Air Task Force) along with a number of other non-profit groups to support EPA, and we argued in our January 2022 brief that this case should not be properly before the Court at this time. 

This is the largest and most important climate case to come before the Supreme Court in over a decade – and the decision could be disastrous for addressing climate change. The Supreme Court’s short-sighted, radical decision potentially dooms the United State’s 2030 climate goals by putting them out of reach. This decision makes those goals more challenging and more expensive to meet.

The Supreme Court’s radical approach to weakening our nation’s most treasured environmental laws is extreme. According to this Court, unless Congress is hyper-specific in its statutory language, federal agencies have very little discretion when they take steps to protect public health, safety, and the environment. Given the gridlock in Congress, the Supreme Court has just given polluters a huge gift at a time when communities are dealing with extreme heat and as climate-driven superstorms intensify.

Justice Kagan concluded her powerful dissent by writing:

“And let’s say the obvious: The stakes here are high. Yet the Court today prevents congressionally authorized agency action to curb power plants’ carbon dioxide emissions. The Court appoints itself—instead of Congress or the expert agency—the decision-maker on climate policy. I cannot think of many things more frightening.”

This ruling means individual states, especially fossil fuel states like Pennsylvania, will need to fight even harder to reduce greenhouse gas pollution within their borders and rapidly and deliberately transition to decarbonize our economies and societies. 

Can you donate to support the Council’s ongoing work to address climate change and protect public health from harmful emissions? 

The Council will fight to defend your right to clean air and water provided by all sections of the Clean Air Act (1963) and Clean Water Act (1972), which could be next on the chopping block.

Thank you, 

Jessica Bellwoar

Development Officer