SEEC Leadership statement on Supreme Court oral arguments in West Virginia v. EPA
Washington D.C. – The leaders of the House Sustainable Energy and Environment Coalition (SEEC), including Co-Chairs Reps. Gerry Connolly, Doris Matsui, and Paul Tonko and Vice-Chairs Reps. Matt Cartwright, Alan Lowenthal, A. Donald McEachin, Chellie Pingree, and Mike Quigley, released the following statement after the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case West Virginia v. EPA.
"On the very same day that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its latest report that the dangers of climate change are increasing at a scale so rapid that humanity may soon be overwhelmed in its ability to respond, the Supreme Court has chosen to consider limiting one of the U.S. government's best tools to fight the climate crisis.
"The oral arguments for West Virginia v. EPA this morning laid bare the intention of the Republican attorneys general and coal companies that brought forth this case. They seek nothing less than to hamstring the EPA's ability to issue protections that would reduce the power sector's greenhouse gas pollution. What is even more concerning is that the Supreme Court opted to entertain this radical notion in the first place.
"Quite simply, this case should never have reached the Supreme Court. The Court is being asked to review a rule no longer on the books that is imposing no costs on the states or coal companies bringing the case. It is a fundamental principle of our country's judicial system that litigants must be actively injured in the present in order to have standing to sue. In hearing this case without an active EPA rule in place, and thus with no standing to be adjudicated, the Court implies that it is considering broadly limiting the EPA's ability to regulate in this arena.
"If the Court ignores this and decides to issue a ruling on the merits, then it must remember its own precedents that give the EPA broad authority to set standards for carbon pollution from power plants, and that this is consistent with the congressional intent behind the Clean Air Act and its subsequent amendments, which were to give the EPA the authority to identify pollutants and set and enforce emissions limits for them.
"This is the argument made in the amicus brief filed on behalf of 192 Members of Congress, including all of us and 53 of our SEEC colleagues. The next months will show whether this Supreme Court will listen to the clear intent of Congress and side with the planet or if it instead will choose to work on behalf of a fringe group of fossil fuel special interests."