supremecourt.gov
Last Tuesday, over a dozen organizations and hundreds of individuals filed briefs with the United States Supreme Court in West Virginia v. EPA, expressing strong support for the Environmental Protection Agency’s obligation and authority under the Clean Air Act to curb climate-disrupting greenhouse gas pollution from the nation’s coal- and gas-burning power plants. This coalition is remarkably broad and includes several of the nation’s top climate scientists; a bipartisan group of eight former commissioners of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; renowned New York University law professor Ricky Revesz; the National League of Cities; the American Medical Association and other public health organizations; tech companies like Apple, Google, and Microsoft; electrical grid experts; 192 members of Congress; and Tom Jorling, a former Congressional staffer who drafted the majority of the Clean Air Act of 1970.
These organizations and individuals join a well-rounded coalition coming together in support of EPA authority, which already includes environmental groups, clean energy trade associations, Attorneys General from 22 states and the District of Columbia, the cities of New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia, South Miami, Denver, and Boulder, and numerous electrical utilities.
This broad statement of support makes it clear that, while Sierra Club and its allies in the NGO community are leaders in fighting for a safer climate and cleaner air for all communities, they are raising their voices together with a chorus of supporters that extends far beyond the modern environmental movement. It includes businesses, trade associations, legal and technical experts, public officials, and even the utilities that would be regulated and that are standing opposite the coal companies and right-wing extremists attacking climate action. Here’s a quick glance at a few of the groups that have filed briefs backing the EPA’s authority, and a look at what that reveals about the significance of this case.
While states and cities have some ability to limit pollution from power plants in their jurisdictions, they can’t do it alone. Climate pollution knows no borders, and federal leadership is necessary to protect communities from coast to coast. Thankfully, the Clean Air Act helps provide the framework for action – and that’s why New York, California, Massachusetts, and nearly 20 other states and a number of major cities filed briefs in support of the EPA’s authority to issue robust protections against power plants' carbon pollution. A negative ruling in this case would hinder the ability of states and cities to protect themselves from air pollution and worsening climate change, meaning it has high stakes for communities all over the country.
Air pollution and the climate crisis are among the biggest threats to public health and safety. With climate change growing more severe with each passing day, it is more critical than ever to preserve the EPA’s authority to regulate the very pollutants driving the climate crisis. The Clean Air Act was designed in part to help protect the health of the public, so it is no surprise that public health organizations with similar missions are speaking out in favor of the EPA’s authority. A brief from the American Medical Association, American Lung Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and 14 other public health organizations makes it clear: “Driven by fossil fuel emissions, climate pollutants harm public health across every segment of American society and in every state. The consequences of climate change impair pulmonary, cardiovascular, neurological, immunological, behavioral health, and other vital systems and functions.…Any ruling that reduces the ability of the EPA to discharge its public health mission under the Clean Air Act would harm the public welfare.”
Several of the country’s largest utilities–including Consolidated Edison, Inc., Exelon Corporation, National Grid USA, and others–joined the litigation as parties on the side of Sierra Club and its allies. These power companies have voiced strong support for the EPA’s authority to rein in power plant pollution using a robust and well-proven set of emission reduction measures. In other words, many of the entities that would be subject to the EPA’s authority to limit power plant emissions want to ensure that the agency has all the tools it needs to keep doing its job. In contrast, no utilities have joined this case as petitioners attacking the EPA’s authority. In fact, the Edison Electric Institute—the trade association representing all US investor-owned electric companies—filed a brief expressing its support for the EPA’s authority to limit carbon pollution from power plants and rejecting the extremist arguments advanced by the petitioners.
In addition to the dozens of organizations supporting EPA authority in this case, many individuals have weighed in to defend strong climate action. In addition to climate scientists and law professors, Senators Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Richard Blumenthal, and Sheldon Whitehouse raised their voices in support of the EPA’s authority to issue real and meaningful cuts to power plant carbon pollution, as did 192 members of the House. And, of course, poll after poll shows that a bipartisan majority of Americans wants our leaders to tackle the climate crisis now.
The broad coalition that backs the EPA’s authority to protect the public from the threat of climate change represents a diversity of interests. Whether they are trade associations, doctors, legal experts, major businesses, leaders of states and cities, environmental groups, or utilities, they have all reached the same conclusion: The Clean Air Act grants the EPA not just the ability, but duty to limit power plants’ greenhouse gas pollution and curb the climate crisis. We remain confident that the Court will agree, and look forward to the oral arguments that will help make this case on February 28.