In recent weeks, the Supreme Court has issued a number of landmark decisions considering critical issues such as the right to life, religious liberty, immigration, and concealed carry laws. These have all been contentious, hotly debated issues for decades, but one ruling will have the ability to influence the entire domestic energy industry, our economy, and our entire system of governance. In West Virginia v. EPA, the justices decided 6–3 to repeal an Obama-era rule allowing the EPA to regulate carbon emissions for the entire energy industry.
Though it took a backseat in reporting in comparison to some of the more nationally recognized cases, this case has far greater implications than simply regulating our energy production. This case sent a warning shot regarding the separation of powers between a bureaucratic agency and elected officials who represent the will of the people and are directly accountable to them. In Congress, not acting should be as powerful of a signal to the bureaucracy as taking an action. If a “Green New Deal” member of Congress proposes but doesn’t pass a law, that doesn’t give agencies the autonomy to create the same outcome by fiat.
For too long, the court deferred to the bureaucrats as “the experts” under what is known as Chevron deference. That assumes the administration’s employees are neutral, when, in fact, they are not. The EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers have been trying to rewrite the meaning of the Clean Water Act so that water rolling down a 4-inch furrow is treated “like water coming down a mini mountain range,” thus placing every puddle and farm field under the government’s thumb. While Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. was not overturned in this case, the court has ruled that government agencies cannot invent their own all-powerful authority out of 40-year-old laws.
The Biden administration has tried to argue that the Clean Air Act gives the EPA “broad” powers that allow it to regulate the energy industry sweepingly. Let’s be clear: In no way, shape, or form does the Clean Air Act authorize the EPA to cap carbon dioxide emissions in such a way that forces a nationwide transition away from the largest energy-producing industry we have. Those elected by the people to represent the will of the people are the only ones who have the authority to determine decisions of this economic and political magnitude — not unelected bureaucrats.
In their decision, the court chose to protect the rights of the people and the well-being of our Republic over the environmental desires of a select few. Our federal government was established with stringent rules of checks and balances. The court recognized that too much lawmaking authority had been ceded to the executive branch and aptly corrected course.
Last year, I signed on to an amicus brief in the Supreme Court in support of the petitioners of this case, including the state of West Virginia. In recent years, both Congress and state legislatures have passed countless laws aimed at reducing emissions from an array of industries. From 2019 to 2020 alone, the United States decreased carbon emissions by 11%, and even so, carbon dioxide makes up only 0.04% of the total atmosphere. Technological advancements, free market economics, and a desire to do better have made the U.S. a world leader in a variety of safe, clean, and affordable energy — including coal and natural gas.
Although many are trying to spin this decision as a deliberate hindrance to the Biden administration’s climate policy, it’s necessary to remember that the true question of this case regarded unfettered expansion of the executive agencies’ authority. It’s the court’s duty to uphold the constitution’s guarantee of separation of powers and three co-equal branches of government. I thank the court for giving the executive branch a civics lesson.
Doug LaMalfa represents California’s 1st Congressional District in the U.S. House of Representatives.
