Supreme Court Limits EPA Authority to Regulate Power Plant Emissions

Contributing sentiments towards policy:

55% : The CPP was designed to regulate CO emissions and move states toward utilization of cleaner energy resources, such as solar and wind power.
55% : The Supreme Court then granted a request by Republican-led states and coal companies to review that ruling.
47% : It also said the federal agency could not push states to close coal- or natural gas-fired power plants in favor of renewable energy installations.
44% : The case stems from disagreement over what level of authority the EPA has to mandate that power plants reduce their emissions of GHG, with West Virginia's attorney general suing on behalf of coal companies who have argued the federal government doesn't have the authority to regulate GHG.
44% :Oral arguments in the West Virginia vs. EPA case took place in February of this year, after EPA during the Trump administration decided to repeal the CPP and issue the ACE rule, which brought a court challenge by a different plaintiffs.
42% : The court on June 30 said the EPA does not have broad authority to shift U.S. energy production away from coal-fired power plants toward cleaner energy sources, including solar and wind power.
40% : The court said future measures to address pollution must be limited to restrictions imposed on specific coal-fired plants, instead of pushing utilities to shift from coal toward renewable energy resources.

*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.