'Major step backward': Pa. groups react to Supreme Court decision limiting EPA's ability to tackle greenhouse gas emissions

Contributing sentiments towards policy:

61% : The most recent auction in June generated $309.7 million that the participating states will use for various energy efficiency, renewable energy, and utility bill assistance programs.
57% : The Clean Power PA Coalition, a group that advocates for clean energy, called the decision a "major step backward" that "favors the narrow special interest of corporate polluters.
51% :Collins notes coal has been a dwindling power source in Pennsylvania in recent years because of economic factors, such as cheaper power provided by natural gas and competition from renewables.
48% : Advocates and experts were still scrambling Thursday afternoon to digest the sweeping implications of the Supreme Court's ruling in West Virginia v. EPA, wondering whether it would embolden polluters, and other industries, to make similar claims under what's known as the "major questions doctrine," which refers to a federal agency making rules that have major economic or political significance.
47% : The ruling, because it applied to only a federal agency, does not appear to hamper the ability of states such as Pennsylvania, where coal is still a regular source of energy, to set their own plans to curb carbon dioxide or methane emissions.
41% :America's Power, a coal industry trade organization, however, hailed the court's decision that the "EPA does not have unlimited authority to do anything it wants to do.
41% :Michelle Bloodworth, CEO of America's Power, a coal industry trade organization, hailed the court's decision, saying, "The issue is not whether EPA can regulate carbon dioxide emissions under ... the Clean Air Act, but rather what kind of standards the agency is allowed to set.
41% : We are pleased the court agreed with us that EPA does not have unlimited authority to do anything it wants to do."
40% : Minott said that not only does Congress not have the scientific expertise to create pollution standards but members "can't even agree if it's Monday or Tuesday."Brendan Collins, an environmental attorney at Philadelphia-based Ballard Spahr with clients in the electric, oil and gas power sectors, agreed that the ruling "does not prohibit states from adopting programs at EPA cannot adopt."
39% : Environmental groups and attorneys from the Philadelphia region reacted strongly and swiftly to Thursday's U.S. Supreme Court's decision siding with coal companies that the federal Environmental Protection Agency does not have authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants in an effort to curb climate change.

*Our bias meter rating uses data science including sentiment analysis, machine learning and our proprietary algorithm for determining biases in news articles. Bias scores are on a scale of -100% to 100% with higher negative scores being more liberal and higher positive scores being more conservative, and 0% being neutral. The rating is an independent analysis and is not affiliated nor sponsored by the news source or any other organization.