This browser does not support the Video element.
SCOTUS EPA ruling, Wisconsinites debate decision on carbon emissions rulemaking
The Supreme Court rules against the EPA in a case involving a power plant emissions rule. In the decision, the justices say such broad rules have to go through Congress. Wisconsinites explain what it means for the Badger State.
MILWAUKEE - Wisconsin environmentalists warn that a new U.S. Supreme Court ruling will hurt efforts to keep your air clean, while the state's largest business organization praises the ruling.
In the 6-3 decision, with the conservatives justices in the majority, the court ruled against the Environmental Protection Agency, in a case that started with an Obama-era rule.
"The immediate impact is going to be minimal because this rule wasn’t in place," said David Strifling, Marquette University Law School's Water Law and Policy Initiative.
That's because the Obama administration announced its "clean power plan," which would have required states to cut emissions by transitioning off coal-fired plants, but it never took effect. The Supreme Court blocked it in 2016. With changing administrations, the rule was back in court, once again landing in the highest court of the country.
"In the longer term, this ruling could have major implications for Wisconsin and throughout the country, because it regulates how EPA can regulate greenhouse gas emissions," said Strifling.
The Supreme Court says those federal regulations need Congress’ approval: "…it is not plausible that Congress gave EPA the authority to adopt on its own such a regulatory scheme…A decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself, or an agency acting pursuant to a clear delegation from that representative body."
"Because we have congressional deadlock, we’re not likely to see any action out of the U.S Congress to address climate change, so presidential administration after presidential administration has relied upon agency regulation from the EPA to try to address this problem in different ways," said Strifling.
"This puts a capper on that [EPA regulations] as an avenue for addressing climate change and greenhouse gas emissions from electrical power plants, electrical generating power plants and says, ‘We have to wait for Congress to do something about this,’ and it’s just not clear that Congress will in the foreseeable future," added Strifling.
"Congress is entirely dysfunctional," said Brett Korte of environmental group Clean Wisconsin. "To think that Congress is going to get their act together soon enough to stave off the worst of our climate issues, I don’t have a lot of hope for that."
What comes next might be voluntary.
In Oak Creek, We Energies burns coal to generate your power. The company also taps water, wind, solar and nuclear power. Driving down I-94, you may recognize the power plant in the Menomonee Valley. It used to be coal powered, but in 2014 and 2015, it was transitioned to cleaner natural gas.
It's part of We Energies' plans to voluntarily cut back on pollution.
"Based on the 2005 emissions, we are saying a 60% reduction of carbon emissions by the end of 2025, 80% by the end of 2030 and then have net-zero carbon emissions by 2050," said Brendan Conway, We Energies.
FOX6's Jason Calvi: "How do you get to net-zero? That's going to be incredibly difficult."
SIGN UP TODAY: Get daily headlines, breaking news emails from FOX6 News
"We say we can get to 80 with current technology today," responded Conway. "We're confident in 80. That last 20%, no one has necessarily, you know, cracked that code. There's a lot of exciting things. We're actually leading a pilot on hydrogen that the entire industry is watching."
"We’re really concerned about their ability to meet those targets," said Korte. "We haven’t really seen their plan of how their going to do it. They just keep saying they’re going to do it."
A We Energies spokesman says he doesn't expect the Supreme Court ruling to change their plans.
"We actually announced in November of last year some of the most aggressive carbon reduction environmental goals in the utility industry. We're still going through this decision to see exactly what specific impact it could have. But at this point, we don't believe it's going to have any impact on our day-to-day operations. And we also don't think it's going to have any impact on our environmental goals," said Conway.
While it was voluntary for We Energies, what power does the government have to force change? The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling now says the EPA doesn’t have broad power to regulate emissions unless Congress approves.
"We’ve got another disappointing decision from the Supreme Court," said Korte. "We’re really concerned that this decision today is going to hamstring EPA’s ability, and therefore Wisconsin’s ability to take the necessary actions to get off us fossil fuels as fast as we can."
Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce praised the Supreme Court decision.
"Today’s ruling is a major win for the rule of law, and it ensures that decisions with massive impact on the economy can only be made by officials who answer directly to the voters and not unelected bureaucrats. Environmental regulations must not only be based in science, but also balance the economic impact they will have," said WMC's Scott Manley. "We applaud the Supreme Court for protecting the voice of the people, the rule of law, the business community and the overall economy."