Oregon will press ahead with state efforts to curb greenhouse gases despite a U.S. Supreme Court decision disallowing a federal agency to do the same.
The high court’s 6-3 ruling announced Thursday, June 30, says the Environmental Protection Agency does not have specific authority under the 1970 Clean Air Act to limit carbon emissions from existing power plants. The lawsuit was filed by West Virginia, a coal-producing state, and consolidated with related cases.
Gov. Kate Brown decried that decision. So did Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum, who represented Oregon in support of EPA’s 2015 effort under President Barack Obama to regulate power-plant emissions — and against the subsequent effort under President Donald Trump to repeal those rules.
Also weighing in against the decision were Oregon’s U.S. senators, Oregon Senate and House Democrats, and the NW Energy Coalition, which consists of more than 100 environmental, civic and human services organizations and clean-energy businesses.
“This Supreme Court decision undermines 50 years of federal progress under the Clean Air Act,” Brown said in a tweet after the decision. “Oregon will continue to lead the way to address climate change at the state level, moving to 100% clean energy, capping emissions, and taking a comprehensive approach to climate change.”
The Oregon Environmental Quality Commission approved a climate plan on Dec. 16, more than 18 months after Brown issued an executive order to do so. The Democratic governor acted after walkouts by Republican minorities in both chambers of the Legislature thwarted votes on climate-change bills in 2019 and 2020.
The plan sets targets of 50% reduction by 2035 and 90% reduction by 2050, based on 2017-19 levels.
The plan combines traditional regulation of 13 large stationary sources, such as manufacturing plants, with a system of credits that suppliers of gasoline, diesel and other fossil fuels can spend on projects to reduce greenhouse gases — particularly in low-income and minority neighborhoods and rural areas that face greater negative environmental effects. These are known as “community climate investments,” although polluting companies can use them to fulfill only part of their obligations to reduce greenhouse gases.
Three separate challenges to the plan were filed in March with the Oregon Court of Appeals. All argue that only the Legislature, not the governor, can empower the commission to draft a plan. One is by the Western States Petroleum Association, another is by Oregon’s three natural gas utilities — NW Natural, Avista and Cascade Natural Gas.
Commented