In its recent decision, West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency the US Supreme Court sent a message to big-government regulators that it will not tolerate over-reach by government bureaucrats. At issue was the Clean Power Plan, passed during the Obama administration which called on the Federal Environmental Protection Agency to develop rules that would require the "best system of emissions reduction" for each energy sector. The problem arose when the EPA drew up rules that would effectively put the coal sector out of business -- which was not the intent of Congress.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the 6-3 majority said, "The only question before the Court is more narrow: whether the “best system of emission reduction” identified by EPA in the Clean Power Plan was within the authority granted to the Agency in Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act. For the reasons given, the answer is no.

State Representatives Khanh Pham (D-Portland), Pam Marsh (D-Ashland), Zach Hudson (D-Troutdale), Ken Helm (D-Washington County), Andrea Valderrama (D-Portland), and Jason Kropf (D-Bend) have issued a joint statement to denounce the decision, which they claim "strip[s] the Environmental Protection Agency of its power, granted by Congress, to tackle the most pressing environmental issue of our lifetime: the climate crisis."

"The decision makes sense in that the EPA has a myopic mandate, which is to protect the environment. They have no authority or mandate to provide safe, low-cost, reliable energy sources to consumers or businesses. The decision to weigh these factors against each other does and should lie with a democratically-elected, accountable body such as Congress," said one former Oregon State Representative. He noted that the high court had not ruled out the mandates -- just that the EPA did not have the authority to enact them.

The House Democrats countered,

“Today’s Supreme Court ruling will give corporations and special fossil fuel interests even more power to determine our future and survival as a planet, despite decades of precedent and the many climate scientists repeatedly sounding the alarm that we face even more catastrophic disasters as greenhouse gas emissions rise.

“This will be detrimental to our health, safety, and well-being, as communities across the planet face disasters like wildfires, ice storms, drought, flooding, and extreme temperatures.

“We know low-income, rural, BIPOC, youth, women, LGBTQIA+, immigrant and refugee communities are hit hardest by these climate disasters. In fact, studies show BIPOC communities experience disparate health outcomes from increasing environmental hazards that impact reproductive health. Years of redlining and racial discrimination have displaced communities of color into neighborhoods with low tree canopies and contaminated water and air. This means the need for environmental and reproductive justice is urgent in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling last week on Dobbs v. Jackson.

Expressing frustration with judicial dismantling of big-government, Oregon House Democrats said it is the "responsibility of the Biden administration and Congress to use the power voters have clearly given them to put a check on the judicial branch."

Not to be outdone, Senate Majority Leader Rob Wagner (D-Lake Oswego) “Today’s ruling...reflects a huge step backwards in our national fight for clean air and environmental sustainability. This is yet another extreme decision from a U.S. Supreme Court stacked with conservative judges handpicked by corporate special interests. Now more than ever before, Democratic leadership at the state level stands as a critical line of defense against our hijacked federal judicial branch.”

“The scientific community has been clear: we are running out of time to combat the climate crisis,” said Senator Kate Lieber (D-Beaverton), Chair of the Senate Interim Committee on Energy and Environment. “We have made meaningful progress here in Oregon, including passage of Oregon’s historic Coal to Clean Act. In the face of this decision, action from Oregon and other states will be even more important. We need to call on Congress to pass clean energy legislation and move the needle forward nationally.”

Oregon Democrats have a track record of symbolic hostility to fossil fuels, enacting a ban on "fracking" in 2019 with HB 2623. Oregon has few fossil fuel reserves and no hydraulic fracturing -- "fracking" -- has ever been used in Oregon.

Fundamentally, today’s decision demonstrates a shift towards broad deregulation. The dangerous consequences of deregulation could range from worsening air pollution to declining civil rights and housing protections. “Today’s decision creates immediate and devastating consequences in the EPA’s ability to effectively regulate polluters and fight climate change,” said Senator Kayse Jama (D-Portland). “Unfortunately, the Court’s shift towards deregulation has the potential to undermine the work of other federal agencies we count on to protect our civil rights and public health. In Oregon, we have a duty to protect those who are bound to feel these devastating consequences.”


--Donna Bleiler and Staff Reporters

Post Date: 2022-07-06 05:40:04

Last Update: 2022-07-05 19:57:16