Broad Coalition Backs EPA’s Authority to Curb Carbon Pollution in Crucial West Virginia v. EPA Case

An increasingly broad coalition of groups, including trade associations, public health organizations, legal experts, states and cities, and utilities, is asking  the Supreme Court to uphold strong EPA authority to limit carbon pollution from power plants

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Yesterday, over a dozen organizations and hundreds of individuals filed briefs with the United States Supreme Court in the case West Virginia v. EPA, supporting EPA’s obligation and authority under the Clean Air Act to issue robust limits on climate-disrupting carbon dioxide pollution from coal- and gas-burning power plants. Among many others, those backing the EPA’s authority include some of the nation’s top climate scientists, a bipartisan group of eight former commissioners of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, renowned NYU law professor professor Ricky Revesz, the National League of Cities, the American Medical Association, electrical grid experts, and Tom Jorling, a former Congressional staffer who drafted the text of much of the Clean Air Act of 1970. 

These distinguished experts join a broad coalition that 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, including Consolidated Edison, Exelon, and National Grid USA. By contrast, no utilities have joined this case as petitioners attacking EPA authority. In fact, the Edison Electric Institute–the trade association representing  all U.S. investor-owned electric companies–filed a brief expressing its support for EPA’s authority to limit carbon pollution from power plants.

Last January, Sierra Club and its allies successfully persuaded the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit that the Trump EPA’s appallingly weak limits on power sector carbon pollution hinged upon a plain misreading of the Clean Air Act. The Supreme Court will now decide whether (as the court below held) the Trump Administration incorrectly interpreted the law by arbitrarily restricting its own authority to curtail carbon dioxide emissions from dirty fossil fuel-burning power plants.

In response, Sierra Club Senior Attorney Andres Restrepo released the following statement:

“The broad coalition that supports EPA’s duty to establish meaningful and robust limits on power plant carbon pollution includes everyone from nationally prominent law professors to public health experts to even utilities that own plants subject to EPA regulation. In fact, one of the primary authors of the Clean Air Act provision that is at issue in this case has reiterated EPA’s authority. The public, the experts, and the law are on the side of these common sense protections. Meanwhile, right-wing politicians and coal company executives are trying to seize this opportunity to push a radical agenda: they are asking the Court to strike a body blow against EPA and its ability under the Clean Air Act to issue meaningful safeguards against power plant carbon pollution. Indeed, these extremists are seeking a ruling that would crush the authority of virtually every federal agency to carry out vital Congressional directives.

“The coalition of voices that oppose this overreach is strong and well-rounded. Together, we are confident that the extreme positions of the coal industry and its political allies are out of line with the Clean Air Act and with the governing legal precedent, and we look forward to oral arguments before the Court on February 28.”