July 4, 2022 - Two of Wyoming’s three members of Congress, the state’s governor and the energy industry have cheered a Supreme Court ruling curbing some of the Environmental Protection Agency’s regulatory power.

All politicians from the state who issued statements about the high court’s ruling supported the outcome, at least based on the comments received by the Wyoming Tribune Eagle. Environmental groups, most based outside Wyoming, reacted warily and worried about the potential for increased pollution as a result of the court decision. Some also slammed the justices who signed onto the decision.

The Supreme Court on Thursday limited how, under the Clean Air Act, the EPA can enact rules in order to try to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from electricity-generation facilities. Instead of a federal agency acting on its own, the court decision signaled that Congress should take the lead. The justices voted along partisan lines.

Both of Wyoming’s two U.S. senators, who also are Republicans, noted they and colleagues had told the court last year about concerns with how the EPA under President Joe Biden’s administration was interpreting the Clean Air Act. Other members of Congress signing on to this brief were senators including Deb Fischer, R-Neb., Kevin Cramer, R-N.D., and John Thune, R-S.D. U.S. representatives backing this stance included John Curtis, R-Utah, Kelly Armstrong, R-N.D., Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., and Russ Fulcher, R-Idaho.

One Wyoming legislator who did not appear to have supported this view was Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo. Her office also did not issue any statements or make any comments by Friday’s publication deadline.

Senators, Governor

Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., said in a written statement Thursday that the top U.S. court’s decision “rightfully reins in unreasonable and unlawful attempts to shut down American power plants and energy production.”

Barrasso claimed that “for years, Democrats have used overreaching” EPA “regulations to side-step Congress ... to enact their extreme climate agenda.” Barrasso noted the court decision “confirms Congress, not the EPA, has the authority to create environmental policy.”

Sen. Cynthia Lummis, R-Wyo., described herself as “glad the Supreme Court ruled the Clean Air Act does not give the EPA the power to decide unilaterally what fuels power plants can and cannot use.” That agency under both the Biden and Obama administrations “completely overstepped its authority by circumventing Congress to target oil, natural gas and coal producers,” the lawmaker said. “While I am committed to pursuing clean energy technologies through efforts like the American Energy, Jobs and Climate Plan, the power to create sweeping environmental rules belongs with the legislative branch.”

For his part, Wyoming Gov. Mark Gordon deemed the ruling “a clean win for” the state. He pointed out that Wyoming was part of the lawsuit that led to the Supreme Court opinion in West Virginia vs. EPA.

“Wyoming joined this lawsuit to protect Wyoming’s coal-fired plants from federal overreach intent only on curtailing coal-fired electric generation,” the governor said. The court “decision recognizes that innovation, not regulation, is a key to a prosperous future and a healthier environment,” he continued. “Legal authority to regulate emissions properly lies with Congress and the states.”

Industry, Advocates

Industry also cheered.

Congress “long abdicated its duty in passing coherent, meaningful legislation that addresses the most pressing issues of the day. That has opened a void allowing unelected bureaucrats to consolidate decision making power,” wrote the Petroleum Association of Wyoming. The West Virginia decision “is a welcome rebuke of that trend and a step in the right direction to rein in unwieldy agency rules.”

Travis Deti, executive director of the Wyoming Mining Association, views the case as showing the “EPA doesn’t have the authority to force coal out of the American energy mix under the Clean Air Act.” In a Friday email to the WTE, he added that “federal agencies asserting highly consequential power beyond the intentions of Congress has become a significant problem, and this decision is a great step in the right direction.”

Environmental protection advocates had a much different view.

The case “severely restricts” the EPA’s “ability to address the climate crisis by limiting the agency’s ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from industrial sources,” said a Friday release from WildEarth Guardians. Executive Director John Horning stated that the group is “outraged and saddened by the reckless and blatantly biased” majority opinion of the court.

The Sierra Club encouraged people to contact their senators, to ask them to pass “a climate justice bill now!”