What the Supreme Court's EPA ruling means for emissions in the state

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 vote that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency doesn’t have broad power to regulate carbon emissions at power plants across the country.

It was a major setback for President Biden’s plans to reduce carbon emissions and combat climate change. Power plants make up about 30% of America’s carbon emissions, and Biden has said he wants to cut the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions in half by the end of the decade and to have an emissions-free power sector by 2035.

U.S. Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., said the Supreme Court’s decision will make it harder for Biden and future presidents to tackle climate change. The decision maintains the EPA’s authority to regulate power plants on an individual basis, but stops the agency from setting broad emission goals that would then apply to all plants.

“The climate crisis is an all-hands-on-deck challenge and today the Supreme Court tied one of the EPA’s hands behind its back,” said Casey.

While the federal administration is now restricted in how it can regulate power plants, Pennsylvania still has power to do so. David Masur, director of PennEnvironment, said this Supreme Court’s decision puts more pressure on state and local officials to enact climate rules that set and require carbon emission reductions.

“With climate change, we have a limited time to solve the existential crisis of our lifetime,” Masur said. “And not having all the tools in the toolbox, not having nationwide rules, will hurt.”

The EPA doesn’t have any broad emission reduction rules now, as former President Trump rolled back former President Obama’s initiatives. Biden aimed to establish new regulations, but hasn’t yet.

Now, the Supreme Court decision hampers Biden, but Masur said it doesn’t have an effect on Pennsylvania or Pittsburgh-area regulations.

“The good news, under Pennsylvania’s clean air laws, this decision doesn’t affect our laws,” said Masur.

Gov. Tom Wolf, a Democrat, vowed to continue state efforts to reduce carbon emissions.“Pennsylvania’s authority to curb greenhouse gas emissions has not changed,” Wolf tweeted. “Nor has my commitment to making our commonwealth a leader in the fight against climate change. As long as I’m governor, Pennsylvania will address this crisis.”

The Allegheny County Health Department has authority to create regulations related to air pollution, which can have an effect on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Geoffrey Rabinowitz, deputy director of the health department’s Bureau of Environmental Health, said the department is reviewing the Supreme Court decision and working to see how, if at all, it will affect the department as a regulatory agency.

Pennsylvania is a top polluter

As of 2019, Pennsylvania was the fourth-largest producer of carbon dioxide emissions and seventh-biggest producer of coal-related emissions among U.S. states, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Western Pennsylvania is home to many power plants, including some of the largest coal-fired power plants in the state. Coal power plants generate the most carbon emissions of any power generators.

Indiana County is home to two large coal power plants, the Homer City Generating Station and Conemaugh Generating station. The Keystone Generating Station is nearby in Armstrong County. Another coal power plant, the Cheswick Generating Station in Springdale, recently shut down. Officials at the Homer City plant would not comment on the ruling.

Masur said that the Supreme Court decision shouldn’t have an immediate impact on coal plants in the Pittsburgh area. He said the decision also won’t bring back the Cheswick plant because that plant, and most coal plants, closed down because electricity generated by coal is now less efficient than energy generated by natural gas, wind, solar and other methods.

He noted that while there is now extra focus on how state and local agencies in Pennsylvania react, the Supreme Court ruling did leave an opening for Congress to create broad regulations for the EPA to implement.

Other officials react

U.S. Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., praised the Supreme Court ruling. He said the process of regulating carbon emissions and tackling climate change belongs with elected representatives, and criticized those who are trying to achieve their goals through unelected, unaccountable branches of government.

“The Supreme Court’s decision on the EPA is a win for the democratic process,” tweeted Toomey.Masur said he thinks it’s unlikely Congress will act given the necessity to get 60 votes in the Senate, including several from Republicans, to support climate change measures.

He said the most likely route for reducing carbon emissions in Pennsylvania is through the state’s Department of Environmental Protection, which still has authority to regulate air pollution and emissions. The DEP’s biggest current initiative is its attempt to join the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), which would move Pennsylvania into a pact with several other Northeastern states to place a price on each ton of carbon released into the atmosphere during electricity generation.

According to the DEP, the initiative would reduce carbon emissions by 31% compared to 2019 levels.RGGI still faces approval from state courts, but if approved, its future may not be set in stone. Masur said RGGI likely depends on who wins the governor’s race this November.

State Sen. Doug Mastriano, the Republican nominee for governor, has vowed to remove Pennsylvania from RGGI, saying that the move would cost Pennsylvania jobs and lead to higher energy prices.

Mastriano has also supported efforts to strip the DEP of the power to implement RGGI and sought to allow oil and gas leases on state parks and forests. In the past, Mastriano has called global warming “fake science.”In a statement, Mastriano applauded the SCOTUS decision and said it placed a check on the overreach of the federal government. He said, if elected, he will work to support responsible development of energy projects in Pennsylvania and “unleash an unprecedented boom in our energy sector.”

“Power will be rightly returned to the people, who decide important policy matters through their elected representatives,” said Mastriano. “When I am governor of Pennsylvania, we will be good stewards of our air and water while getting government out of the way of our energy industry. We can and will do both.”Meanwhile, Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro said last year RGGI is legal and nothing in state law prohibits Pennsylvania from joining the pact. Speaking as a candidate for governor, Shapiro said he supported addressing climate change, protecting and creating energy jobs, and ensuring the state has reliable and clean energy, but said he was unsure if RGGI was the path to do that.

Shapiro campaign spokesman Manuel Bonder said Pennsylvanians have a constitutional right to clean air and water, and Shapiro will protect those rights as governor. “Today’s ruling once again shows that critical decisions about our country’s future will be up to the states,” Bonder said.

The Shapiro campaign didn’t address specific questions about RGGI, but Masur said he would be surprised if a Shapiro administration pulls out of the RGGI if it were to withstand its court challenges.Masur said Pittsburgh-area officials also should continue to combat climate change locally, and not just wait on what the state decides.

“Certainly for Allegheny County and the city of Pittsburgh, this decision should really motivate them to double down on what they are doing,” Masur said. “And there is a lot that could be done.”

Ryan Deto is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Ryan by email at rdeto@triblive.com or via Twitter.

This article originally appeared on Erie Times-News: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled the EPA doesn’t have broad power to regulate carbon emissions.