"Will have a devastating impact": Minnesota lawmakers respond to court's EPA decision
MINNEAPOLIS -- The Supreme Court on Thursday limited the power of the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, delivering a significant blow to the Biden administration's efforts to fight climate change.
Minnesota lawmakers were swift to respond to the decision, with Sen. Tina Smith calling the decision "deeply flawed."
"For more than fifty years, the Clean Air Act has reduced pollution and improved air quality and health for families in Minnesota and across the country. Fifteen years ago, a conservative-majority court correctly ruled that this law could be the basis for regulating greenhouse gases—a decision that was reaffirmed in a unanimous opinion in 2011.
"And yet, just 11 years later, this activist Supreme Court disregarded years of precedent and sided with large polluters and conservative special interests by gutting our ability to reduce power plant emissions.
"The Court's decision in West Virginia v. EPA is deeply flawed and will have a devastating impact on our ability to protect Americans from pollution and dangerous carbon emissions. The record heat waves and extreme weather we are experiencing demonstrate that the climate crisis is real and we need bold action now to protect our health, economy and security. This decision highlights the urgency of passing strong climate and clean energy legislation now."
Rep. Ilhan Omar also spoke out against the ruling, saying it "not only flies in the face of the letter of the law, but of basic morality."
It makes it nearly impossible for us to stave off the worst of the climate crisis, and will fall hardest on the most vulnerable communities. Like the decision overturning Roe, the reasoning risks eliminating other precedents, including dozens of regulations that keep our water safe, protect us from heat, and toxic chemicals.
"Even more worrisome, it is only the latest signpost in the frightening backsliding of US democracy.
"Democracies' legitimacy rest on the consent of the governed, on the premise that decisions made by civic institutions reflect the will of the citizens and non-citizens they impact. From the January 6th insurrection to stolen seats on the court, it has become increasingly clear that our country is in the midst of a democratic crisis, with the Supreme Court at the heart of it."
And Minnesota Senate DFL Leader Melisa López Franzen called it another "extreme ruling," adding that "climate change is an existential threat to our nation's health and economic future and this extreme ruling by the Supreme Court is a major setback to our ability to fight it. When the court takes away tools from the EPA to address power plant pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, it cripples our nation's ability to limit the quickly-expanding costs of climate change and it puts all of our futures at greater risk."
The court divided 6-3 along ideological lines in finding that Congress, through the Clean Air Act, did not grant the EPA the authority to adopt on its own a regulatory scheme to cap carbon dioxide emissions from power plants to combat global warming. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, while the court's three-member liberal bloc dissented.
The case stems from the EPA's Clean Power Plan, finalized in 2015, which implemented a directive from then-President Barack Obama to use an ancillary provision of the Clear Air Act to address climate change by imposing mandates for existing coal and natural gas power plants to reduce emissions.
